Prepared by:

HNTB New York Engineering

and Architecture, PC

In association with:

Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP

Louis T. Klauder & Associates

AKRF, Inc.

Pinyon Environmental, Inc.

High Speed Rail 

Empire Corridor

Tier 1 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Volume 1

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

New York State 

Department of Transportation

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Pursuant to: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( 42 USC Section 4321 et seq.) 

Federal Railroad Administration, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545) 

New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617) 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (U.S. DOT, FRA) 

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 

Jo;;:h GbLtu. 

cDonald, Commissioner 

Il� ;ikuJ]J r;O-c-. Joseph C. -4� Szabo, Administrator '0 .._

 

/ 

N York State Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 

Date: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Date: I /I�/ /f 

r 7 

Contact the following individuals for additional information concerning this document: 

David Chan, Project Manager 

Policy and Planning Division 

New York State Department of Transportation 

50 Wolf Road, Pod #61 

Albany, NY 12232 

Tel.: (518} 485-1918 

E-mail: david.chan@dot.ny.gov 

David Valenstein, Chief 

Environment and Systems Planning Division 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, MS-20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tel.: (202} 493-6368 

E-mail: david.valenstein@dot.gov 

Abstract: This Tier 1 (Program) EIS describes and summarizes the environmental impacts of 

proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire 

Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara 

Falls, New York. It addresses broad, corridor-level issues associated with higher speed passenger 

rail service along the Empire Corridor, such as service frequency, service reliability, and trip times, 

and sets forth a package of follow-on studies, proposals, and projects. Five alternatives are 

evaluated relative to meeting the project needs of reducing infrastructure constraints and 

accommodating existing and projected demand in the corridor: the Base, or No Action, Alternative; 

and four Build alternatives, consisting of two 90 mile per hour (mph) alternatives, and two higherspeed alternatives of 110 mph and 125 mph. Site-specific impacts of the selected program will be 

determined, and avoidance options and mitigation measures to minimize impacts will be further 

defined, in Tier 2 evaluations. 

www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor. 

Comments on this Tier 1 EIS are due by March 24, 2014 and should be sent to NYSDOT at the above 

address. Public hearings will be held. Locations and times will be posted on the project website 

Notice will be mailed to interested parties and published in newspapers of 

general circulation. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
List of Volumes Tier 1 Draft EIS

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) consists of four volumes:

Volume 1 Environmental Impact Statement, which includes:

• Executive Summary

• Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose and Need

• Chapter 2, Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

• Chapter 3, Alternatives

• Chapter 4, Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Chapter 5, Financial Capacity

• Chapter 6, Comparison of Alternatives

• Chapter 7, Comments and Coordination

• References, Acronyms, Glossary of Terms, and List of Preparers

Volume 2 Appendix A - Track Schematics, (On CD-ROM at the back of Volume 1)

Track schematic (11”x17”) plans of the Base Alternative and four Build Alternatives 

Volume 3 Appendices B through H, (On CD-ROM at the back of Volume 1)

• Appendix B Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

• Appendix C Alternatives Development and Screening Report

• Appendix D Rail Network Operations Simulation

• Appendix E Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects

• Appendix F Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology

• Appendix G Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation

• Appendix H Draft Programmatic Agreement

Volume 4 Appendices I through J, (On CD-ROM at the back of Volume 1)

• Appendix I Agency Correspondence

o Cooperating Agencies Correspondence

o Participating Agencies Correspondence

o Section 106 Correspondence

o Agency Notification Correspondence

• Appendix J CSXT and NYSDOT Agreements

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Volumes

This page intentionally left blank.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Table of Contents Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... i

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................................................................. viii

ES. Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................ES-1

1. Introduction and Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1.1. Tiered NEPA EIS ............................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.1.2. Corridor and Program History ......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.3. CSXT Agreements ............................................................................................................................ 1-5

1.2. Problem Statement.................................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.3. Program Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4. Program Needs......................................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4.1. Reduce Infrastructure Constraints .................................................................................................. 1-7

1.4.2. Accommodate Existing and Projected Demand ............................................................................ 1-10

1.5. Performance Objectives......................................................................................................................... 1-11

1.6. Transportation-Related Goals................................................................................................................ 1-11

2. Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets........................................................................................ 2-1

2.1. Empire Corridor Rail System .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1. Railroad Ownership......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2. Route Description............................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2. Major Markets Served by the Empire Corridor........................................................................................ 2-9

2.2.1. Characteristics of the Major Markets.............................................................................................. 2-9

2.2.2. Transportation Market Study ........................................................................................................ 2-12

2.3. Other Existing Rail Routes...................................................................................................................... 2-17

2.3.1. Additional Rail Routes ................................................................................................................... 2-17

2.3.2. Linkages to Adjoining Rail Corridors.............................................................................................. 2-18

2.4. FRA Track Classification and Speed........................................................................................................ 2-20

2.5. Freight Operations ................................................................................................................................. 2-23

2.6. Commuter Rail Operations..................................................................................................................... 2-25

2.7. Intercity Passenger Rail Operations....................................................................................................... 2-26

2.7.1. Reliability ....................................................................................................................................... 2-26

2.7.2. Travel Times .................................................................................................................................. 2-27

2.7.3. Schedule Frequency ...................................................................................................................... 2-28

2.7.4. Ridership........................................................................................................................................ 2-30

2.8. Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 2-31

2.8.1. Track and Signals........................................................................................................................... 2-31

2.8.2. Stations and Parking...................................................................................................................... 2-34

2.8.3. Rail Yards and Maintenance Facilities........................................................................................... 2-39

2.8.4. Bridges and Tunnels ...................................................................................................................... 2-42

2.8.5. Grade Crossings............................................................................................................................. 2-45

2.8.6. Rolling Stock .................................................................................................................................. 2-46

2.9. Safety Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 2-47

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Table of Contents

3. Alternatives............................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1. Alternatives Development and Screening................................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.1. Service Schedules and Station Stops............................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.2. Equipment....................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.1.3. Physical Improvements ................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated From Further Study ................................................................. 3-8

3.2.1. 79 mph MAS Alternatives................................................................................................................ 3-8

3.2.2. Very High Speed (VHS) Alternatives................................................................................................ 3-9

3.2.3. 125 mph MAS Alternative on Existing Empire Corridor ................................................................ 3-10

3.3. Feasible Alternatives Advanced for Further Study................................................................................. 3-10

3.3.1. Base Alternative ............................................................................................................................ 3-15

3.3.2. Alternative 90A.............................................................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.3. Alternative 90B.............................................................................................................................. 3-34

3.3.4. Alternative 110.............................................................................................................................. 3-41

3.3.5. Alternative 125.............................................................................................................................. 3-50

4. Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2. Land Use................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1. Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.4. Environmental Consequences......................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4-12

4.2.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.3. Regional Population and Employment, and Business Districts.............................................................. 4-13

4.3.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4-13

4.3.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4-13

4.3.3. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4-14

4.3.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4-22

4.3.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4-25

4.3.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4-26

4.4. Environmental Justice and Title VI ......................................................................................................... 4-26

4.4.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4-26

4.4.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4-27

4.4.3. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4-28

4.4.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4-28

4.4.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4-33

4.4.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4-33

4.5. Community and Public Facilities ............................................................................................................ 4-34

4.5.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4-34

4.5.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4-34

4.5.3. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4-35

4.5.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4-36

4.5.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4-41

Page ii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Table of Contents Tier 1 Draft EIS 

 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page iii 

New York State Department of Transportation 

4.6. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ............................................................................................... 4‐42

4.6.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4‐42

4.6.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4‐44

4.6.3. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4‐44

4.6.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4‐47

4.6.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4‐54

4.6.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4‐55

4.7. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers.................................................................................................... 4‐56

4.7.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4‐56

4.7.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4‐57

4.7.3. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4‐57

4.7.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4‐58

4.7.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4‐58

4.7.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4‐59

4.8. Navigable Waters................................................................................................................................... 4‐60

4.8.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4‐60

4.8.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4‐60

4.8.3. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4‐61

4.8.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4‐61

4.8.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4‐66

4.8.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4‐67

4.9. Floodplains............................................................................................................................................. 4‐67

4.9.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4‐67

4.9.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4‐68

4.9.3. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4‐69

4.9.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4‐69

4.9.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4‐77

4.9.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4‐78

4.10. Wetlands................................................................................................................................................ 4‐80

4.10.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4‐80

4.10.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4‐81

4.10.3. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4‐82

4.10.4. Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 4‐85

4.10.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................................... 4‐93

4.10.6. Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 4‐95

4.11. Coastal Resources .................................................................................................................................. 4‐97

4.11.1. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................ 4‐97

4.11.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4‐98

4.11.3. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 4‐98

4.11.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4‐103

4.11.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4‐109

4.11.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4‐110

4.12. Aquifers................................................................................................................................................ 4‐110

4.12.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4‐110

4.12.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4‐111

4.12.3. Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................... 4‐111
Tier 1 Draft EIS Table of Contents

4.12.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-112

4.12.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-120

4.12.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-120

4.13. General Ecology and Wildlife Resources.............................................................................................. 4-121

4.13.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-121

4.13.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-123

4.13.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-123

4.13.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-133

4.13.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-138

4.13.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-138

4.14. Critical Environmental Areas under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.............................. 4-140

4.14.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-140

4.14.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-140

4.14.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-140

4.14.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-142

4.14.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-146

4.14.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-147

4.15. Historic and Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 4-147

4.15.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-147

4.15.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-148

4.15.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-153

4.15.4. Potential Adverse Effects ............................................................................................................ 4-157

4.15.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-169

4.15.6. Programmatic Agreement and Future Analysis........................................................................... 4-170

4.16. Parks and Recreational Areas............................................................................................................... 4-172

4.16.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-172

4.16.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-173

4.16.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-173

4.16.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-181

4.16.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-186

4.16.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-186

4.17. Visual Resources................................................................................................................................... 4-187

4.17.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-187

4.17.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-187

4.17.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-187

4.17.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-190

4.17.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-196

4.17.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-196

4.18. Farmlands............................................................................................................................................. 4-197

4.18.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-197

4.18.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-197

4.18.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-198

4.18.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-200

4.18.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-206

4.18.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-207

4.19. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 4-208

Page iv High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Table of Contents Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.19.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-208

4.19.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-216

4.19.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-218

4.19.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-218

4.19.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-225

4.19.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-225

4.20. Energy and Climate Change ................................................................................................................. 4-225

4.20.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-226

4.20.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-229

4.20.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-231

4.20.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-232

4.20.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-235

4.20.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-237

4.21. Noise and Vibration.............................................................................................................................. 4-237

4.21.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-238

4.21.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-240

4.21.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-241

4.21.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-244

4.21.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-249

4.21.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-250

4.22. Contaminated and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 4-250

4.22.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-250

4.22.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-252

4.22.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-252

4.22.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-253

4.22.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-257

4.22.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-257

4.23. Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) ....................................................................................................................... 4-259

4.23.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-259

4.23.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-260

4.23.3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4-262

4.23.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-271

4.23.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-288

4.23.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-289

4.24. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-291

4.24.1. Regulatory Context...................................................................................................................... 4-291

4.24.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-292

4.24.3. Considerations for Impact Assessment....................................................................................... 4-292

4.24.4. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 4-295

4.24.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................... 4-300

4.24.6. Future Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4-300

4.25. Construction......................................................................................................................................... 4-300

5. Financial Capacity................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2. Cost and Revenue Methodology.............................................................................................................. 5-1

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page v

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Table of Contents

5.2.1. Capital Cost Estimating Methodology ............................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.2. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Estimating Methodology............................................... 5-4

5.2.3. Revenue Estimating Methodology .................................................................................................. 5-5

5.2.4. Deficit/Subsidy Estimating Methodology........................................................................................ 5-5

5.3. Capital Funding Needs, Requirements and Sources ................................................................................ 5-5

5.3.1. The Capital Plan............................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.3.2. Capital Funding Programs ............................................................................................................... 5-7

5.3.3. Program Capital Funding Financial Roles ...................................................................................... 5-10

5.4. Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements and Sources....................................................... 5-12

5.5. Financial Performance of Alternatives................................................................................................... 5-13

5.5.1. Capacity of Empire Corridor Service to Absorb Infrastructure Improvements............................. 5-15

5.5.2. Sequence of Capital Investments.................................................................................................. 5-16

5.5.3. Estimates of Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs, Ridership and Revenues ...................... 5-17

5.5.4. Financial Profiles of Alternatives................................................................................................... 5-21

5.6. Summary of Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs, Revenues and Subsidies for Empire Corridor 

Alternatives......................................................................................................................................................... 5-28

5.7. Funding Assumptions, Risks and Requirements..................................................................................... 5-29

5.7.1. Financial Capacity Analysis............................................................................................................ 5-30

5.7.2. Risk and Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Strategies..................................................................... 5-30

5.7.3. Capital Cost Risks........................................................................................................................... 5-30

5.7.4. Operating Cost Risks...................................................................................................................... 5-31

6. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2. Goals and Objectives................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.1. Performance Objectives.................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2.2. Transportation-Related Goals ......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.3. Alternatives Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3.1. Base Alternative Performance......................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3.2. Build Alternatives Performance ...................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3.3. Comparison of Operational Performance and Costs..................................................................... 6-11

6.4. Summary of Environmental Impacts...................................................................................................... 6-13

6.5. Identification of a Preferred Alternative/Selection of a Final Alternative ............................................. 6-17

7. Comments and Coordination................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2. Program Identifier.................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3. Public Outreach........................................................................................................................................ 7-2

7.3.1. Stakeholder Mailing List .................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.3.2. Media Outreach............................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3.3. Newsletters ..................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3.4. Program Website............................................................................................................................. 7-3

7.4. Public Scoping Process............................................................................................................................. 7-4

7.4.1. Public Scoping Meetings.................................................................................................................. 7-4

7.4.2. Public Scoping Comments............................................................................................................... 7-5

7.5. Stakeholder Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 7-7

Page vi High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Table of Contents Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.5.1. Agency Coordination ....................................................................................................................... 7-7

7.5.2. Empire Project Advisory Committee (EPAC) ................................................................................... 7-8

7.5.3. Program Partners Involvement ..................................................................................................... 7-12

7.5.4. Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes and Consulting Parties Pursuant to the National 

Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................................................................ 7-12

7.5.5. Future Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Activities................................................... 7-14

References.....................................................................................................................................................................1

Acronyms.....................................................................................................................................................................11

Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................................................................19

List of Preparers...........................................................................................................................................................31

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page vii

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Exhibits

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1—Program Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 1-2

Exhibit 1-2—High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Planning Timeline......................................................................... 1-5

Exhibit 1-3—Livingston Avenue Bridge ................................................................................................................. 1-8

Exhibit 1-4—Empire Corridor Ridership FY02 to FY11 ........................................................................................ 1-10

Exhibit 2-1—Empire Corridor Ownership.............................................................................................................. 2-2

Exhibit 2-2 - Spuyten Duyvil Bridge over Harlem River ......................................................................................... 2-3

Exhibit 2-3—Empire Corridor South...................................................................................................................... 2-4

Exhibit 2-4—Empire Corridor West....................................................................................................................... 2-6

Exhibit 2-5—Niagara Branch ................................................................................................................................. 2-8

Exhibit 2-6—Existing and Projected Population for Metropolitan Areas along Empire Corridor ....................... 2-11

Exhibit 2-7—Existing and Projected Employment for Metropolitan Areas along Empire Corridor .................... 2-11

Exhibit 2-8—Empire Corridor Station, Bus and Airport Locations ...................................................................... 2-13

Exhibit 2-9—Total Single Person Trips per Mode, Entire Corridor, 2009............................................................ 2-14

Exhibit 2-10—Total Single Person Trips per Mode by Major Markets, 2009 ...................................................... 2-14

Exhibit 2-11—Empire Corridor Comparative Travel Market: New York City to Major Markets, 2009 .............. 2-16

Exhibit 2-12—Additional and Adjoining Rail Corridors ....................................................................................... 2-18

Exhibit 2-13—Maximum Authorized Speed by Class of Track ............................................................................ 2-21

Exhibit 2-14—Empire Corridor Maximum Authorized Speed Ranges and Average Operating Speeds .............. 2-22

Exhibit 2-15—Empire Corridor Maximum Authorized Speed by Segment and Speed Range............................. 2-23

Exhibit 2-16—Weekday Train Frequencies on Empire Corridor ......................................................................... 2-24

Exhibit 2-17—2009-2010 Empire Corridor Delays .............................................................................................. 2-27

Exhibit 2-18—2010 Total and 2011 Average Scheduled Empire Corridor One-Way Travel Times..................... 2-28

Exhibit 2-19—2011 Daily Westbound Train Schedule: Albany-Rensselaer to Buffalo-Depew............................ 2-29

Exhibit 2-20—2011 Daily Eastbound Train Schedule: Buffalo-Depew to Albany-Rensselaer ............................. 2-29

Exhibit 2-21—2009 Major Market to Market Boardings..................................................................................... 2-30

Exhibit 2-22—2010 Empire Corridor Amtrak Station Boardings and Alightings ................................................. 2-35

Exhibit 2-23—Pennsylvania Station .................................................................................................................... 2-35

Exhibit 2-24—Albany-Rensselaer Station............................................................................................................ 2-37

Exhibit 2-25—Buffalo Depew Station.................................................................................................................. 2-38

Exhibit 2-26—Summary of Amtrak Rolling Stock Storage and Maintenance Facilities....................................... 2-40

Exhibit 2-27—Major Bridges along Empire Corridor........................................................................................... 2-43

Exhibit 2-28—Tunnels along Empire Corridor..................................................................................................... 2-45

Exhibit 2-29—Ten Year Safety Data in Counties along Empire Corridor, 2002-2011.......................................... 2-48

Exhibit 3-1—FRA Levels of High-Speed Rail Service .............................................................................................. 3-2

Exhibit 3-2—Empire Corridor West: 2008 Delays ................................................................................................ 3-7

Exhibit 3-3—General Elements of the Alternatives .............................................................................................. 3-7

Exhibit 3-4—Corridor Map of the Build Alternatives .......................................................................................... 3-12

Exhibit 3-5—Summary New/Improved Infrastructure needed for Alternatives................................................. 3-12

Exhibit 3-6—Summary of Track Improvements for Alternatives ........................................................................ 3-13

Exhibit 3-7—Summary of Station Improvements for Alternatives...................................................................... 3-14

Exhibit 3-8—Base Alternative – Key Features.................................................................................................... 3-15

Exhibit 3-9—Base Alternative Passenger Rail Improvement Projects................................................................. 3-17

Exhibit 3-10—Base Alternative............................................................................................................................ 3-18

Exhibit 3-11—Alternative 90A – Key Features.................................................................................................... 3-23

Page viii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
List of Exhibits Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-12—Alternative 90A Rail Improvement Projects................................................................................. 3-24

Exhibit 3-13—Alternative 90A............................................................................................................................. 3-26

Exhibit 3-14—Alternative 90A – Slower MAS...................................................................................................... 3-32

Exhibit 3-15—Alternative 90B – Key Features .................................................................................................... 3-34

Exhibit 3-16—Alternative 90B............................................................................................................................. 3-36

Exhibit 3-17—Alternative 110 – Key Features..................................................................................................... 3-42

Exhibit 3-18—Alternative 110 ............................................................................................................................. 3-44

Exhibit 3-19—Alternative 125 – Key Features..................................................................................................... 3-51

Exhibit 3-20—Alternative 125 ............................................................................................................................. 3-52

Exhibit 3-21—Alternative 125 – Existing and New Corridor Mileage and Elevated Tracks................................. 3-55

Exhibit 3-22—Alternative 90A Rail Improvements included in Alternative 125 ................................................. 3-57

Exhibit 4-1—Corridor Map of the Build Alternatives ............................................................................................ 4-1

Exhibit 4-2—Land Use/Land Cover in the 90/110 Study Area (in acres)............................................................... 4-4

Exhibit 4-3—Land Use/Land Cover in the 125 Study Area (in acres) .................................................................... 4-5

Exhibit 4-4—2010 County Population................................................................................................................. 4-15

Exhibit 4-5—2010 and 2035 Population for Counties in the Study Area ............................................................ 4-16

Exhibit 4-6—Population of Major Cities in the Study Area ................................................................................. 4-17

Exhibit 4-7—2009 and 2035 Employment and 2010 Unemployment Rates for Study Area Counties................ 4-18

Exhibit 4-8—Minority and Low-income Population Percentages by County/Major City Along the Empire Corridor 

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-29

Exhibit 4-9—Educational, Emergency/Medical, Government, and Religious Facilities in the Study Area.......... 4-35

Exhibit 4-10—Military, Cultural, DPW/Solid Waste, Correctional, Airport, and Cemetery Facilities in the Study 

Area ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-36

Exhibit 4-11—NYSDEC Surface Water Quality Classifications............................................................................. 4-43

Exhibit 4-12—Empire Corridor Surface Waterway Crossings in the Study Area................................................. 4-46

Exhibit 4-13—Navigable Waters in the Study Area............................................................................................. 4-62

Exhibit 4-14—Mapped FEMA 100-year Floodplains in the Study Area............................................................... 4-70

Exhibit 4-15—NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Classifications in the Study Area ............................................................. 4-81

Exhibit 4-16—NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Classifications................................................................................ 4-82

Exhibit 4-17—Summary of Federal and State Wetlands in the Study Area ........................................................ 4-83

Exhibit 4-18—Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs in the Study Area (for 90/110 and 125 Study Areas 

unless otherwise noted).................................................................................................................................... 4-101

Exhibit 4-19—Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats within 1/2 Mile................................................... 4-104

Exhibit 4-20—Federal Sole Source and State Primary/Principal Aquifers in the Study Area ............................ 4-113

Exhibit 4-21—New York State Ecological Zones Located Within the Study Area.............................................. 4-124

Exhibit 4-22—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 90/110 Study Area.. 4-126

Exhibit 4-23—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 125 Study Area ....... 4-127

Exhibit 4-24—Essential Fish Habitat in the Study Area..................................................................................... 4-129

Exhibit 4-25—Significant Natural Communities in the Study Area ................................................................... 4-131

Exhibit 4-26—Critical Environmental Areas Designated under SEQR in half-mile Study Area.......................... 4-141

Exhibit 4-27 – Architectural Resources within the Direct APE for each Alternative ......................................... 4-156

Exhibit 4-28—Comparison of Potential Impacts to Archaeological Sites and Architectural Resources, by 

Alternative......................................................................................................................................................... 4-158

Exhibit 4-29—National Memorials, National Natural Landmarks, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Historic 

Sites and Preserves within Study Area.............................................................................................................. 4-176

Exhibit 4-30—NYSOPRHP State Parks, State Park Preserves, State Historic Sites............................................. 4-178

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ix

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Exhibits

Exhibit 4-31—New York State DEC Lands.......................................................................................................... 4-179

Exhibit 4-32—County Parks within 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline........................................................ 4-180

Exhibit 4-33—Number of Municipal and Non-Profit Parks with 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline ........... 4-181

Exhibit 4-34—Federally and State-Designated Farmlands in the 90/110 and 125 Study Areas....................... 4-199

Exhibit 4-35—National Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................... 4-210

Exhibit 4-36—Non-Attainment Areas in the Study Area................................................................................... 4-212

Exhibit 4-37—Non-Attainment Areas and Maintenance Areas in the Study Area............................................ 4-213

Exhibit 4-38—General Conformity Threshold Levels........................................................................................ 4-215

Exhibit 4-39—Air Pollutant Concentrations along the Program Corridor (2011).............................................. 4-219

Exhibit 4-40—Screening Level Worst-Case Concentrations from Locomotive Operations (μg/m3) ................ 4-221

Exhibit 4-41—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 90A (tons per year).................. 4-223

Exhibit 4-42—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 90B (tons per year) .................. 4-223

Exhibit 4-43—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 110 (tons per year) .................. 4-223

Exhibit 4-44—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 125 (tons per year) .................. 4-224

Exhibit 4-45—State-Wide Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions (net reduction ton/year).................................. 4-224

Exhibit 4-46—Global Warming Potential (GWP) for Major GHGs..................................................................... 4-227

Exhibit 4-47—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 90A....... 4-233

Exhibit 4-48—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 90B....... 4-233

Exhibit 4-49—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 110 ....... 4-234

Exhibit 4-50—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 125 ....... 4-234

Exhibit 4-51—FRA's and FTA's Land Use Category and Metrics for Train Noise Criteria .................................. 4-239

Exhibit 4-52—Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria ...................... 4-239

Exhibit 4-53—Existing Empire Corridor Train Movements and Noise Levels.................................................... 4-243

Exhibit 4-54—Existing and Alternative Train Movements ................................................................................ 4-245

Exhibit 4-55—General Noise Assessment Results at 50 feet for Program Alternatives.................................... 4-246

Exhibit 4-56—General Noise Assessment Results at 50 feet for Alternative 125 New at-grade Segment....... 4-248

Exhibit 4-57—General Noise Assessment Results at 50 feet for New Elevated Segment................................. 4-248

Exhibit 4-58—Summary of Contaminated and Hazardous Materials Sites within the Study Area ................... 4-253

Exhibit 4-59—National Memorials, National Natural Landmarks, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Historic 

Sites and Preserves within Study Area.............................................................................................................. 4-264

Exhibit 4-60—NYSOPRHP State Parks, State Park Preserves, State Historic Sites............................................. 4-265

Exhibit 4-61—New York State DEC Lands.......................................................................................................... 4-266

Exhibit 4-62—County Parks within 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline........................................................ 4-267

Exhibit 4-63—Number of Municipal and Non-Profit Parks with 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline ........... 4-268

Exhibit 4-64—Historic Architectural Resources within the Direct APE for each Alternative ............................ 4-270

Exhibit 4-65—Comparison of Potential Impacts to Archaeological Sites and Architectural Resources, by 

Alternative......................................................................................................................................................... 4-272

Exhibit 4-66—Projects in the Vicinity of the Empire Corridor........................................................................... 4-294

Exhibit 5-1—Capital Costs................................................................................................................................... 5-15

Exhibit 5-2—Capital Expense Sequence for High-Speed Rail Alternatives.......................................................... 5-16

Exhibit 5-3—Estimated Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs.................................................................... 5-17

Exhibit 5-4—2035 Ridership Forecasts................................................................................................................ 5-19

Exhibit 5-5—Estimated Annual Operating Ticket Revenue................................................................................. 5-20

Exhibit 5-6—Estimated Annual Operating Subsidy ............................................................................................. 5-21

Exhibit 5-7—Capital Costs by Spending Category ............................................................................................... 5-22

Exhibit 5-8—Characteristics of Base Alternative................................................................................................. 5-23

Page x High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
List of Exhibits Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 5-9—Characteristics of Alternative 90A.................................................................................................. 5-24

Exhibit 5-10—Characteristics of Alternative 90B ................................................................................................ 5-25

Exhibit 5-11—Characteristics of Alternative 110 ................................................................................................ 5-26

Exhibit 5-12—Characteristics of Alternative 125 ................................................................................................ 5-28

Exhibit 5-13—Summary of Costs and Revenues for High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Alternatives................... 5-29

Exhibit 5-14—Summary of Tier 1 Capital Costs Risks and Mitigation ................................................................ 5-32

Exhibit 6-1—Alternative Rating Symbols............................................................................................................... 6-3

Exhibit 6-2—Effectiveness of Alternatives in Meeting Performance Objectives.................................................. 6-3

Exhibit 6-3—Estimated On-Time Performance, Albany – Niagara Falls, 2035...................................................... 6-5

Exhibit 6-4—Estimated Travel Times of the Alternatives, 2035............................................................................ 6-6

Exhibit 6-5—Schedule Enhancement by Alternative ............................................................................................ 6-8

Exhibit 6-6—Ridership by Alternative, 2035 ......................................................................................................... 6-9

Exhibit 6-7—Annual Reduction in Auto Trips, 2035, Compared to Base Alternative.......................................... 6-10

Exhibit 6-8—Impact on Freight Train Operations, 2035 ..................................................................................... 6-11

Exhibit 6-9—Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................................................................................. 6-13

Exhibit 6-10—Comparison of Alternatives in Selected Impact Areas ................................................................. 6-14

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative............................................................. 6-18

Exhibit 7-1—Program Logo ................................................................................................................................... 7-2

Exhibit 7-2—Program Web Site Home Page ......................................................................................................... 7-3

Exhibit 7-3—Scoping Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 7-5

Exhibit 7-4—Nature of Public Comments ............................................................................................................. 7-6

Exhibit 7-5—Summary of Public Comments by Category ..................................................................................... 7-7

Exhibit 7-6—Agency Engagement......................................................................................................................... 7-9

Exhibit 7-7—EPAC Member Agencies ................................................................................................................. 7-11

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page xi

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Exhibits

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

ES Executive Summary

ES-1. Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the New York State Department of Transportation 

(NYSDOT) are preparing a tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate proposed 

system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, 

connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station, in Niagara 

Falls, New York. 

The Empire Corridor is one of eleven designated high-speed rail corridors nationwide, initially 

authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and 

supplemented by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21). In 

December 1998, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced the official designation of the TEA21-authorized Empire Corridor as a high-speed rail corridor. On April 16, 2009, President Obama 

announced a Vision for High-Speed Rail in America and committed to funding this program through 

the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). To achieve this vision, the 

FRA launched the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in 2009,1 and Congress 

funded $8 billion through ARRA. Congress continued to fund annual appropriations totaling $2 

billion for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,2 using the framework developed by the Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIAA).3 

The EIS has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545); and 

the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations (6 

New York Codes, Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] Part 617). 

FRA and NYSDOT are using a tiered process to complete the environmental review of the High 

Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied 

to environmental reviews for complex projects. This initial phase, the Tier 1 EIS, addresses broad 

corridor-level issues and sets forth a package of follow-on studies, proposals, and projects. 

Subsequent phases, or tiers, will analyze, at a greater level of detail, site-specific proposals based on 

the decisions made in Tier 1. 

The possibility of instituting high-speed rail along the Empire Corridor has been the focus of studies 

by NYSDOT and others for more than twenty years. Developments in recent years by FRA and

NYSDOT/New York State have advanced rail planning and funding at both the federal and state 

levels, culminating in this Tier 1 EIS to evaluate high-speed passenger rail service along the Empire 

Corridor. Each alternative analyzed in the EIS contains the same set of enhancements for the 

Empire Corridor South (south of Albany/Rensselaer). Those enhancements were developed and 

1

/ The HSIPR program is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) and 

the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 (Division A of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117)). 2

/ Additional funds under these original appropriations were redistributed again in 2011, after several states returned the grant monies. 3

/ The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (Division B, Title III of Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4907 

(October 16, 2008)) authorized the appropriation of funds to establish several new passenger rail grant programs, including capital 

investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service, high-speed corridor development, and congestion grants. FRA 

consolidated these and other closely related programs into the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-1 

New York State Department of Transportation 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

agreed by the owners and operators of the Empire Corridor South and set forth in the Hudson Line 

Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan: Final Report (2005). For the Empire Corridor West (west of

Albany/Rensselaer), the EIS analyzes new alternative sets of improvements and projects. 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), a private freight railroad company, owns more than half of the 

Empire Corridor (Exhibit 2-1). While recognizing the federal NEPA and New York state SEQR legal 

framework upon which the environmental review process must be based, this Tier 1 Draft EIS has 

also been developed in consideration of two agreements between NYSDOT and CSXT (dated May 

28, 2010), “Framework Agreement Concerning Certain Rights and Responsibilities with Respect to 

New York High Speed Rail” and “Agreement for Progressing a Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement” (“Agreements”) (attached as Appendix J). 

ES-2. What is the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program?

The Empire Corridor connects New York City with the largest cities in New York state, extending 

north through Yonkers and Poughkeepsie, turning west at Albany to extend through Schenectady, 

Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, and terminating at Niagara Falls. The Empire Corridor 

consists of three main sections: Empire Corridor South, Empire Corridor West, and Niagara Branch, 

as shown in Exhibit ES-1. 

• Empire Corridor South begins at Penn Station in New York City and extends 142 miles along 

the east side of the Hudson River, from Manhattan (New York County) through the Bronx 

(Bronx County), Yonkers and Croton-Harmon (Westchester County), Poughkeepsie and 

Rhinecliff (Dutchess County), to Albany-Rensselaer Station (Rensselaer County). 

• Empire Corridor West extends 294 miles west from Albany-Rensselaer Station to just east of 

the Buffalo-Exchange Street Station, passing through the Mohawk Valley from the Capital 

District cities of Albany (Albany County) and Schenectady (Schenectady County), through the 

central-western New York cities of Utica (Oneida County), Syracuse (Onondaga County), and

Rochester (Monroe County) in the Finger Lakes District, and Buffalo (Erie County) on Lake Erie. 

Outside of these metropolitan areas, the railroad also passes through the more rural counties of 

Montgomery, Herkimer, Madison, Cayuga, Wayne, Monroe, and Genesee. 

• The Niagara Branch extends 27 miles west, from east of Buffalo-Exchange Street Station to 

Niagara Falls (Niagara County).

ES-2.1. What is the transportation corridor used for?

The existing Empire Corridor has been a vital transportation route of national significance for 

almost 200 years. The corridor developed along the historic “Water Level Route” that followed the 

canal system connecting Lake Erie and the Hudson River to transport goods and services to and 

from New York City. The Empire Corridor helped to establish New York City as an international 

trade center, connecting markets in Canada and the Midwest with Albany (providing connections to 

Montreal and Boston) and New York City. For many decades, the railroad was operated by the New 

York Central Railroad as a four-track speedway between Albany and Buffalo carrying passenger 

and freight trains on express and local tracks. 

Page ES-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit ES-1—Program Location Map

The Empire Corridor runs along the population and economic spine of the state, connecting all of 

New York State’s major metropolitan areas. The corridor is essential to New York for its ability to 

efficiently transport large numbers of passengers and goods annually that would otherwise be 

transported via highway and air travel corridors. It is distinguished by its diversity of ownership

and the mix of passenger and freight usage, as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’s

(Amtrak’s) Empire Service shares trackage with CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-3 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North). 

Empire Corridor South is dominated by commuter travel and carries a much greater frequency of 

intercity passenger rail services and only a limited number of freight trains. The Metro-North, the 

busiest commuter railroad in the United States based on ridership, operates the Hudson Line 

commuter rail service between Poughkeepsie and Grand Central Terminal, cross-town from Penn 

Station. Metro-North operates between roughly 50 (weekend) and 77 (weekday) daily roundtrips 

along the Hudson Line. Amtrak operates thirteen daily roundtrips (weekdays) along Empire 

Corridor South between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City, with eleven daily roundtrips on the 

weekends. In addition to Empire Service to Buffalo and points beyond (four daily roundtrips), this 

section of track also accommodates Amtrak service that extends north of Schenectady Station on 

the Canadian Pacific Railway to Montreal (Adirondack—one daily roundtrip) and Vermont (Ethan 

Allen Express—one daily roundtrip). There is also one daily connecting service from AlbanyRensselaer to Boston, Massachusetts. 

Passenger service on Empire Corridor South has shared use of the tracks with limited freight 

operations of approximately four trains a day.

Empire Corridor West is a two-track line that is the busiest freight track in the state, carrying one 

of the highest volumes on the CSXT system nationwide. This is the only railroad crossing 

upstate/western New York that can accommodate the maximum freight rail car weight (315,000 

pounds). The entire line west of Hoffmans (west of Albany) also has adequate clearance for doublestack intermodal trains. CSXT operates this as a high-volume railroad that is heavily used by 50 to 

60 daily freight trains. 

Amtrak operates a total of four daily roundtrips along Empire Corridor West. Amtrak operates 

three daily round trips to Niagara Falls (Empire Service), with one continuing on to Toronto (Maple 

Leaf Service). The other daily service trip continues from Buffalo-Depew Station to Chicago (Lake 

Shore Limited). 

The Niagara Branch is primarily a passenger railroad, since there is a freight bypass route used by 

CSXT that provides modern clearances for freight service to Niagara Falls. Of the four daily 

westbound passenger trains operated by Amtrak along Empire Corridor West from Albany to 

Buffalo, three continue on to Niagara Falls.

ES-2.2. What is the purpose and need for the program? 

The purpose of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program is to introduce higher passenger train 

speeds on the Empire Corridor and to improve reliability, travel times, service frequency, and 

passenger amenities. By improving passenger rail service along the corridor, the High Speed Rail 

Empire Corridor Program will attract additional passengers, increase travel choices, and contribute 

to a balanced, multi-modal transportation system.

The need for the program is that existing Empire Corridor passenger rail service is negatively 

impacted by inadequate service levels, operational constraints, and delays resulting from pervasive 

conflicts with freight traffic. As a result, it is not viewed by travelers as a viable, attractive 

transportation option, particularly to and from points west of Albany-Rensselaer. For example, the 

trip from Buffalo to New York City can be made in less than two hours by air and under seven hours 

by car, compared to approximately eight hours by the existing Empire Corridor passenger service 

Page ES-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

provided by Amtrak. 

Despite these constraints and service problems, ridership on the Empire Corridor had increased by 

37 percent (387,304 passengers) over 10 years to total more than 1.4 million passengers in 2011. 

Since 2001, ridership on the Buffalo to Albany portion of the corridor has more than doubled, at the 

same time freight and commuter rail volumes have grown. Projections through 2035 indicate that 

freight traffic will continue to increase, and forecasts for the Metro-North Hudson Line through 

2020 also indicate projected increases of 28 percent. Congestion is expected to only worsen as 

demand for intercity passenger, commuter, and freight rail services all continue to grow on these 

shared-track systems. 

Despite the growth in ridership, there is still a need for the program. Existing and forecasted 

socioeconomic and transportation market conditions in the Empire Corridor indicate an 

opportunity for an improved Empire Corridor passenger rail service to further grow, offering a 

viable, alternative mode of intercity travel in the Empire Corridor.

Existing conditions limit Empire Corridor service. Simulated existing (2008, pre-recession) 

passenger service along Empire Corridor West indicates that passenger train on-time performance 

(OTP) is less than 48 percent, with an average train speed of approximately 50 miles per hour 

(mph) and an average train lateness of almost 28 minutes. Simulated existing freight train 

performance along Empire Corridor West indicates over 38 train minutes of delay per 100 freight 

train miles operated, indicating congestion ahead, and a high variability in average freight train trip 

times, indicating service inconsistency.4 

Current passenger rail service is also infrequent relative to travel demand. For example, there is a 

strong travel market between New York City and Albany, and passenger rail captures only 11

percent of that travel market. Currently, 13 weekday trips are available, with the earliest Albany 

arrival time of approximately 9:30 a.m.; this limited service does not accommodate business 

weekday schedules. Furthermore, although maximum authorized speeds along portions of the 

Empire Corridor are 79 mph on the Buffalo to Hoffmans (west of Albany) segment and 110 mph on 

the Hoffmans to New York City segment (refer to Figure ES-1), actual operating speeds along the 

majority of the rail corridor are considerably lower due to track conditions, alignment, and obsolete 

or inadequate track and signal systems which constrain capacity and speed. 

ES-2.3. What are the goals and objectives of the program? 

NYSDOT proposes to undertake the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program to improve intercity 

passenger service in New York State through infrastructure investments and operational 

improvements, which will enhance the attractiveness of the service to existing and potential riders, 

increase the market share of intercity passenger rail, and contribute to an overall balanced 

transportation network. Improvements in service include tangible and measurable gains in 

operational reliability and travel time reductions of scheduled train trips; an increase in the 

frequency of train trips; and support of economic development, mobility, and environmental 

sustainability goals.

NYSDOT has identified the following performance objectives for the High Speed Rail Empire 

4/ LTK Engineering Services. Rail Network Operations Simulation Results. Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation. 

June 2012. Network simulations for this Tier 1 EIS reflect the rail network along Empire Corridor West. The Hudson Line Corridor 

Railroad Transportation Plan, 2005, includes rail operations network simulation results and proposed actions for Empire Corridor South.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-5

New York State Department of Transportation 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

Corridor Program as measurable objectives that directly relate to the program purpose and need to 

reduce infrastructure constraints to accommodate existing and projected demand:

• Improve system-wide on-time performance (OTP) to at least 90 percent,

• Reduce travel time along all segments of the Empire Corridor,

• Increase the frequency of service (number of daily round trips) along Empire Corridor West 

beyond the existing four daily round trips,

• Attract additional passengers,

• Reduce automobile trips, thereby reducing highway congestion,

• Minimize interference with freight rail operations.

These six performance objectives are used to evaluate and rank the high-speed rail alternatives 

developed for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The environmental impacts of these 

alternatives are also considered, as presented in this Tier 1 Draft EIS, and will be an important 

factor in selecting the alternative to be advanced. 

In addition, NYSDOT identified the following transportation-related goals for the program:

• Increase travel choices and improve quality of life by providing additional commuting and 

travel options for residents and workers,

• Contribute to economic revitalization by accommodating forecasted growth in population and 

employment and corridor rail freight operations,

• Improve environmental quality by facilitating rail use and reducing reliance on automobile 

travel, thereby reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

ES-2.4. Why is this EIS being conducted?

The purpose of this Tier 1 EIS is to address broad, corridor-level issues associated with higher 

speed passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor and to set forth a package of follow-on (Tier 

2) studies, proposals, and projects. The Tier 1 EIS evaluates a range of alternatives to meet the 

program needs of reducing infrastructure constraints and accommodating existing and projected 

demand in the Empire Corridor. It identifies broad-based operational changes and investments in 

infrastructure and rolling stock (locomotives and passenger coaches) necessary to achieve the

performance objectives, and estimates the capital and operating costs of the different alternatives. 

As a result of the Tier 1 EIS, FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with the Empire Project Advisory 

Committee, other agencies, and the public, will select an alternative which best meets the program

needs.

This Tier 1 EIS accomplishes the following:

• Defines the purpose and need for the proposed action including performance objectives

(Chapter 1);

• Documents the need for the proposed action by analyzing existing conditions (Chapter2); 

Page ES-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Develops criteria and screens alternatives to eliminate those that do not meet the purpose and 

need of the proposed action (Chapter 3);

• Identifies the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered, consistent with the current and 

planned use of the corridor, existing services within and adjacent to the program area, and 

other planned improvements (Chapter 3);

• Identifies the general alignments and right-of-way requirements of the reasonable alternatives 

(Chapter 3);

• Identifies the travel times, service schedule, frequencies, and stations serviced for the 

reasonable alternatives (Chapter 3);

• Identifies environmental constraints and considerations and performs high-level 

environmental review and analysis of conceptual alternatives under consideration (Chapter 4);

• Identifies the infrastructure and equipment investment requirements for each of the reasonable 

alternatives (Chapter 5);

• Establishes the timing and sequencing of individual capital improvements to implement the 

proposed action (Chapter 5);

• Evaluates the alternatives according to the program purpose and need and impact upon 

existing freight service, and compares the likely environmental impacts among alternatives 

(Chapter 6);

• Documents the public outreach and agency coordination process used to solicit input on the 

alternatives (Chapter 7). 

If a Build Alternative is selected at the conclusion of the Tier 1 process, the follow-on Tier 2 NEPA 

documents will then explore in greater detail the component projects of the selected corridor-level 

alternative chosen in Tier 1. Tier 2 will include detailed analyses based on refined engineering 

designs and operational plans. It will identify site-specific environmental consequences, and 

develop site-specific mitigation measures for the selected alternative. Input from the public and 

from reviewing agencies will be solicited during both tiers.

ES-3. Alternatives Considered

ES-3.1. Initial alternatives considered

NYSDOT considered alternatives relative to maximum passenger train speeds, service frequencies, 

and physical improvement projects. Initially, alternatives were developed according to FRA’s 

definitions of high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail service, labeled as Emerging, Regional, 

and Core Express: 

• Emerging: Describes relatively frequent service to connect smaller communities, with speeds 

up to 90 mph, on tracks shared by freight, commuter, and intercity passenger rail;

• Regional: Describes relatively frequent service to connect mid-sized urban areas, with speeds 

between 90 and 125 mph, on tracks that may be shared by freight, commuter, and intercity 

passenger rail or on tracks dedicated for passenger rail;

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-7

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

• Core Express: Describes frequent service to connect large urban areas, with speeds between 

125 and 250 mph or more, on tracks dedicated for intercity passenger rail.

NYSDOT developed an initial range of possible alternatives within the framework of these 

categories and grouped according to six maximum authorized speed (MAS) groups. The six MAS 

groups are described below:

• Using 79 mph as the MAS represents what can be done with current track standards and in-cab 

signaling capacity. The program developed four alternatives in this category, including the Base 

(or “No Action”) Alternative. The alternatives would use current vehicle technology with the 

possibility of integrated train sets, and would fall into FRA’s “Emerging” category.

• Using 90 mph as the MAS represents the next step up in track standards and in-cab signaling 

train control. The program developed two alternatives in this category. They would use 

current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated train sets, and would fall into FRA’s 

“Regional” category.

• Using 110 mph as the MAS represents another step up in track standards. The program 

developed one alternative in this category. It would use current vehicle technology with the 

possibility of integrated train sets, and would fall into FRA’s “Regional” category.

• Using 125 mph as the MAS represents another step up in track standards and advanced train 

control. The program developed one alternative in this category. It would be the first speed 

threshold for electrically powered trains and would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category.

• Using 160 mph as the MAS represents the practical upper limit of electrified dynamic tilt trains, 

such as the Amtrak Acela, which provide faster operating speeds on curves. The program 

developed one alternative in this category, which would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category.

• Using 220 mph as the MAS represents the practical upper limit of high-speed rail operations 

seen in France, Germany, Spain, Japan, and China. The program developed one alternative in 

this category, which would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category.

In addition to applying FRA’s high-speed rail service levels, alternatives development also included 

an evaluation of service frequency, equipment requirements, and previously-identified and 

potential physical improvements to enhance service. The ten initial alternatives were then 

screened according to the program purpose and need and associated performance goals and 

objectives. Applying a consistent set of performance measures based on the program purpose and 

need and a comparative assessment of the alternatives, certain alternatives were not advanced for 

further evaluation. These included the lower-speed 79 mph MAS alternatives, and the Very High 

Speed (VHS) alternatives (160 mph, 220 mph). The 79 mph alternatives were rejected as not 

providing enough mobility benefit – in terms of speed and travel times - compared to the similar 

cost 90 mph alternatives. The VHS alternatives were rejected for their extremely high cost – nearly 

triple the next most costly alternative – the likelihood of significant community and environmental 

impacts, and significant engineering design difficulties necessary to create a sufficiently straight 

track alignment to permit these speeds. These considerations are discussed more thoroughly in 

Section 3.2.2.

The options retained for further evaluation are discussed in the next section.

Page ES-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

ES-3.2. Alternatives Advanced

Five alternatives, including the Base Alternative and four Build Alternatives, were advanced for 

further study and are the focus of this Tier 1 EIS. The Build Alternatives consist of Alternatives 90A, 

90B, and 110, located along the existing Empire Corridor, and Alternative 125, which continues 

existing service on the existing tracks while adding a new, segregated high-speed right-of-way 

reserved exclusively for passenger trains and paralleling the existing alignment, as shown in Exhibit 

ES-2. 

The following paragraphs describe the five High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program alternatives. 

For each, there are a series of capital improvements aimed at improving switching and signalization 

to increase track capacity, straightening vertical and horizontal curves to permit higher speed, 

adding passing tracks and/or a fully segregated third track reserved for passenger use, and 

reducing the number of vehicular grade crossings to meet FRA requirements for higher-speed 

operation. 

Exhibit ES-2—Corridor Map of the Build Alternatives

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-9

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

In each case, a suite of capital improvements identified in the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor 

Transportation Plan (2005) 5 are included for the Empire Corridor South segment, common to all 

four Build Alternatives. These improvements are:

• Add second track between MPs 9 to 13 (including Spuyten Duyvil Movable Bridge);

• Add New Tarrytown pocket track to support Metro-North turnbacks without delaying Empire 

Corridor Service;

• Add new signal system between Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie Stations (MPs 32.8 to 75) for 

additional operating capacity;

• Add third track (MPs 53 to 63) to support Empire Corridor overtakes of Metro-North trains;

• Add new track/siding at Poughkeepsie Station Track 3 to support higher operating speeds for 

Empire Corridor and Metro-North service;

• Add new Poughkeepsie Yard to eliminate station congestion and crossing conflicts north and 

south of the station;

• Add New CP82, New CP 99, New CP 136 two-track universal interlockings to support enhanced 

reliability during maintenance activities;

• Reconfigure Hudson Station to support simultaneous passenger boarding/alighting on both 

main tracks.

The proposed Albany-Rensselaer Station Fourth-Track Capacity improvements were also included 

in the Hudson Line Transportation Plan, but would be constructed whether the Empire Corridor 

program is built or not. Therefore, these improvements are included with the Base Alternative 

analysis. 

Exhibit ES-4, which follows these descriptions, presents a tabular summary of service levels, 

ridership, and costs for the Base and Build Alternatives. 

ES-3.2.1. Base (No Action) Alternative

The Base (No Action) Alternative analysis required by NEPA/SEQR regulations, is carried through 

the Tier 1 EIS to evaluate the cost and impacts of the program Build Alternatives in relation to the 

benefits gained by the public. The Base Alternative represents a continuation of existing Amtrak 

service with some operational and service improvements and consists of eight planned rail 

improvement projects funded under FRA HSIPR and TIGER grants to address previously identified 

capacity constraints. These improvements have been previously cleared by FRA in a series of

Categorical Exclusions though are considered in this document to the extent they intertwine with 

the alternatives considered below.

Train frequency would remain unchanged from the existing frequency. The Base Alternative would 

maintain the existing 13 round trips per day between New York Penn Station and AlbanyRensselaer Station and the four round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer Station and 

Buffalo, with three trips continuing to Niagara Falls. The majority of the work would occur within 

5

/ Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751-Home/S93751--

Repository/HudsonLineTransportationPlan_Final_Report_2005.pdf.

Page ES-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

the existing right-of-way (ROW). Train trips would continue to operate at the existing maximum 

speed of 79 mph. The average running speed would be 51 mph. Despite projected increases in 

ridership, train frequency in the Base Alternative would remain unchanged from the existing 

frequency, and there would be no additional train sets added to the existing inventory. In 2035, 1.6 

million riders are projected for the Base Alternative.

The capital cost of the Base Alternative is estimated to be $290 million. The annual operations and 

maintenance (O&M) cost would be $103 million. With annual revenue estimated at $77 million, the 

annual deficit would be $26 million. The Base Alternative’s estimated operating ratio, or the 

percent of O&M costs covered by revenue, would be 75 percent. The estimated annual subsidy per 

rider for the Base Alternative would be $16.25. 

 

ES-3.2.2. Alternative 90A

Alternative 90A would add capacity and station improvements through twenty separate, capital 

improvement projects. Improvements for Alternative 90A would include 64 miles of new mainline 

track; and upgrades to 17 grade crossings/warning systems, 74 undergrade bridges, and six

stations/facilities. As noted in the previous section, these improvements include elements 

originally proposed along Empire Corridor South as part of the Hudson Line Transportation Plan. 

Trains would operate at 90 mph MAS between Schenectady and Buffalo Exchange Street, and would 

continue to operate at existing speeds between Penn Station and Schenectady and between Buffalo 

Exchange Street and Niagara Falls. The average running speed in Alternative 90A would increase to 

57 mph, 12 percent faster than in the Base Alternative.

Alternative 90A would add three daily round trips between New York City and Albany, for a total of 

16 round trips; and it would add four daily round trips between Albany and Niagara Falls, for a total 

of eight round trips to Buffalo, with seven continuing to Niagara Falls. Schedule enhancements 

would include express service from New York City to western New York, with station stops in 

Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo-Depew, Buffalo-Exchange Street, and Niagara Falls. 

Six train sets would be added. Alternative 90A is projected to increase annual ridership to 2.3 

million persons in 2035. This would be a gain of 700,000 persons above the ridership projected in 

2035 for the Base Alternative.

The capital cost of Alternative 90A is estimated to be $1.66 billion. The annual O&M cost would be 

$156 million. With annual revenue estimated at $119 million, the annual deficit would be $37 

million. Alternative 90A’s estimated operating cost ratio would be 76 percent, slightly more than 

that of the Base Alternative. The estimated annual subsidy per rider for Alternative 90A would be 

the highest of the Build Alternatives, but would be slightly lower than that of the Base Alternative, 

at $16.09.

ES-3.2.3. Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would include the improvement projects proposed under Alternative 90A. 

Alternative 90B would add a dedicated third main passenger track for approximately 273 miles 

between Schenectady and Buffalo-Depew stations. It would also add a fourth passenger track over 

a combined distance of approximately 39 miles in five separate locations. The third main passenger 

track would be located 15 feet from the existing mainline, and would generally occupy the portion 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-11

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

of the existing railroad bed that historically contained two additional tracks. The fourth tracks 

would be located 15 feet north of the dedicated third track and have been designated with a MAS of 

90 mph. Alternative 90B improvements again include those Empire Corridor South Hudson Line 

Transportation Plan elements common among all of the Build Alternatives, noted in the previous 

section of this Executive Summary. 

 

Additional infrastructure specific to Alternative 90B would include:

• A new signal system to support the 90 mph MAS, 

• Bridge modifications, 

• Grade crossing modifications, 

• Culvert extensions, 

• Station improvements, and

• Three grade separated flyovers to carry passenger track passes over the existing freight tracks. 

Because it would use dedicated passenger-only tracks, Alternative 90B would have fewer speed 

restrictions than would Alternative 90A. Under Alternative 90B, several areas along Empire 

Corridor West would require larger track shifts to obtain an increase in operating speeds due to the 

existing geometry of the track. Trains would operate at 90 mph MAS between Albany, Buffalo, and 

Niagara Falls. The average running speed in Alternative 90B would increase to 61 mph, 17 percent

faster than the average speed of the Base Alternative, and approximately 7 percent faster than the 

average speed of Alternative 90A. 

Similar to Alternative 90A, Alternative 90B would add four daily round trips between Albany and 

Niagara Falls for a total of eight daily round trips to Buffalo. Alternative 90B would add an 

additional round trip between NYC and Albany over Alternative 90A, for a total of 17 round trips 

along Empire Corridor South. Similar to Alternative 90A, six train sets would be added to increase 

the frequency of passenger rail service. Unlike Alternative 90A, there would be no express service 

in Alternative 90B, due to its proposed operating plan. Alternative 90B is projected to increase 

ridership to 2.6 million persons in 2035. This would be a gain of approximately 300,000 persons 

above projected ridership for Alternative 90A and a gain of approximately 1 million persons above 

projected ridership for the Base Alternative. 

The capital cost of Alternative 90B is estimated to be $5.58 billion. The annual O&M cost would be 

$171 million. With annual revenue estimated at $139 million, the annual deficit would be $32 

million. Alternative 90B’s estimated operating ratio would be 81 percent, higher than both the Base 

Alternative and Alternative 90A. The estimated annual subsidy per rider for Alternative 90B would 

be $12.31, approximately 24 percent less than that of the Base Alternative.

ES-3.2.4. Alternative 110

Alternative 110 would include the improvement projects proposed under Alternative 90A and 

would construct new third and fourth main tracks to support the 110 mph MAS. It would add a 

dedicated third main passenger track over 273 miles between Schenectady and Buffalo-Depew

stations. It would also add a fourth passenger track over 59 miles in six locations. The third main 

passenger track would be located generally 30 feet from the existing mainline and occupying a 

portion of the existing railroad bed that historically contained two additional tracks. Due to 

existing physical conditions that would make it impractical to achieve the 30-foot separation, there 

Page ES-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

would be sections of third main track located 15 feet from the existing track. In these instances, the 

MAS would be reduced to 90mph. The fourth tracks would be located between the dedicated third 

track and the existing track using 15-foot track centers, with a designated MAS of 90 mph. 

Alternative 110 improvements again include those Empire Corridor South Hudson Line 

Transportation Plan elements common among all of the Build Alternatives, noted in the previous 

section of this Executive Summary.

Additional infrastructure specific to Alternative 110 would include:

• A new signal system to support the 110 mph MAS, 

• Bridge modifications, 

• Grade crossing modifications, 

• Culvert extensions, 

• Station improvements, and 

• Two grade separated flyovers to carry the third main passenger track over freight tracks. 

Alternative 110 would provide two grade-separated flyovers. West of Rochester, the dedicated 

third passenger track would run over the existing Track 2 alignment, and the existing freight tracks 

would be relocated to the north to maintain the desired track centers. This configuration would 

also eliminate an expensive grade separated flyover. 

The average running speed in Alternative 110 would increase to 63 mph, more than 21 percent

faster than that of the Base Alternative, and approximately 3 percent faster than Alternative 90B’s 

average speed.

Alternative 110 would add the same number of trips along the Empire Corridor as proposed for 

Alternative 90B. Similar to Alternative 90B, Alternative 110 would add four daily round trips 

between Albany and Niagara Falls, for a total of eight daily round trips to Buffalo, and would add 

four daily round trips along Empire Corridor South, for a total of 17 round trips. Due to its 

proposed operating plan, Alternative 110 would not offer express service. Six train sets would be 

added to increase the frequency of passenger rail service. Alternative 110 is projected to increase 

ridership to 2.8 million persons in 2035. This would be a gain of approximately 1.2 million persons 

above projected ridership for the Base Alternative and an increase of 200,000 persons over the 

projected ridership for Alternative 90B.

The capital cost of Alternative 110 is estimated to be $6.25 billion. The annual O&M cost would be 

$173 million. With annual revenue estimated at $149 million, the annual deficit would be $24

million, the lowest of all alternatives. Alternative 110’s estimated operating ratio would be 86

percent, the highest of all alternatives. The estimated annual subsidy per rider for Alternative 110 

would be $8.57, the lowest of all alternatives, and approximately 30 percent less than Alternative 

90B, the second lowest alternative. Alternative 110 also would have the lowest annualized O&M 

cost per rider of all the alternatives. 

ES-3.2.5. Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would include improvements for Alternative 90A along Empire Corridor South and 

the Niagara Branch. Alternative 125 would include station improvements at Syracuse and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-13

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

Rochester Stations proposed under the Base Alternative. Alternative 125 would continue the 

current Amtrak service on the existing right-of-way (“Legacy Service”). 

To achieve the highest speed among the alternatives, however, Alternative 125 would also add a 

new electrified (with overhead catenary), two-track, grade-separated high-speed rail corridor of 

283 miles between Albany/Rensselaer Station and a new Buffalo station. Within the denselydeveloped areas around Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, the new corridor would roughly

parallel the existing corridor on a combination of new and existing ROW to provide express highspeed service to existing stations in these cities. To achieve the grade separation, it is assumed that 

a certain amount of elevated sections would be required in these urban areas. Where Alternative 

125 extends through Rensselaer and Albany counties along the New York State Thruway and 

through the downtown areas of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo (approaching Buffalo Exchange 

Street Station), the tracks would be elevated and Alternative 125 would directly service the existing 

stations serving these cities. The remainder of the track would be largely at grade through 

primarily rural or undeveloped lands, and no new stations along the new alignment sections are 

proposed.

Required infrastructure would include roadbed, track, viaducts and bridges, cuts and 

embankments, access roads, railroad systems, maintenance facilities, and other support facilities. 

The average speed along the new corridor’s express high-speed service only (including Hudson 

Line/Empire Corridor South and not including the existing Amtrak service which would be 

maintained) would be 77 mph, an increase of 51 percent over the Base Alternative and an increase 

of approximately 22 percent over Alternative 110. This does not account for the slower existing

Amtrak service that would be retained on the existing right-of-way. The weighted average speed of 

both services would be 63 mph. Amsterdam, Schenectady, Rome, Utica, and Niagara Falls 

passengers (accounting for a small percentage of Empire Corridor passengers) would not receive 

high-speed dedicated service directly, but would have to transfer at either Albany, Syracuse, 

Rochester or a new Buffalo station to access the faster train service. For the Empire Corridor West 

new two-track right-of-way between Albany and Buffalo alone (without consideration of the other, 

slower services that augment the new 125 mph MAS tracks), the Alternative 125 service would 

operate at an average speed of 108 mph. 

Alternative 125 would provide a total of 19 daily round trips between Albany, Buffalo, of which six

would continue on to Niagara Falls. This compares to the existing four daily round trips to Buffalo, 

of which three continue to Niagara Falls. Four daily round trips would be retained on the existing 

corridor and 15 daily high-speed express round trips would be added on the new corridor. All of 

the trips on the new corridor would be express service, with station stops at Albany/Rensselaer, 

Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would add 17 dual mode locomotives to increase 

the frequency of passenger rail service. Alternative 125 is projected to increase ridership to 4.3 

million persons in the year 2035, more than a 50 percent increase over the projected ridership for 

Alternative 110 and a 169 percent increase over the Base Alternative.

The capital cost of Alternative 125 is estimated to be $14.71 billion. The annual O&M cost would be 

$304 million. With annual revenue estimated at $245 million, the annual deficit would be $59 

million, the highest of all alternatives. Alternative 125’s estimated operating ratio would be 81

percent, the same as that of Alternative 90B. The estimated annual subsidy per rider for Alternative 

125 would be $13.72, approximately 11 percent more than that of Alternative 90B, the second 

lowest alternative. Alternative 125 would have the highest annualized O&M cost per rider of all the 

alternatives.

Page ES-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

ES-4. How do the alternatives compare?

Exhibit ES-3 presents a graphic comparison of the five alternatives, and Exhibit ES-4 presents a 

comparative analysis of service levels, ridership, and costs of the alternatives.

Exhibit ES-3—Comparison of Alternatives

Note: Travel time between NYC and Niagara Falls presented in hours: minutes, based on express service, westbound scheduled times. 

For Alternative 125, average speed for regional service would be 53 mph, and travel time would be 8:40.

ES-4.1. Meeting the Program’s Performance Objectives

Exhibit ES-5 summarizes the effectiveness of the alternatives in meeting the program’s 

performance objectives using the qualitative rating system. The Base Alternative is shown for 

comparison. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-15

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

The projects constructed under the Base Alternative will represent an improvement over existing 

conditions. However, when compared to the Build Alternatives, the Base Alternative will not 

provide service levels sufficient to meet the purpose and need of the High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Program of introducing higher passenger train speeds on the Empire Corridor and 

improving reliability, travel times, service frequency, and passenger amenities. The following are 

the key characteristics of the Base Alternative, relative to the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor 

Program’s performance objectives and goals:

Exhibit ES-4—Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Service Levels

(In round-trips/day)

NYC to Albany 13 16 17 17 24

Albany to Buffalo 4 8 8 8 15 (express)

4 (regional)

Albany to Niagara Falls 3 7 7 7 6

Average Speed NYC to 

Niagara Falls (mph) 51 57 61 63 77 (express)53(regional)

Travel Time: NYC to Niagara 

Falls (hours: minutes) 9:06 8:08 7:36 7:22 6:02 (express)8:40 (regional)

Time Savings Compared to 

Base Alternative - 58 1:30 1:44

3:04

(express)26

(regional)

On-Time Performance 83.0% 92.4% 95.4% 94.9%

100% 

(express)

83.0% 

(regional)

Ridership (Annual One Way)

Total (2035) 1.6 million 2.3 million 2.6 million 2.8 million 4.3 million

Increase as Compared to 

Base Alternative - 0.7 million (44%)

1.0 million 

(63%)

1.2 million 

(75%)

2.7 million 

(169%)

Costs1

Capital Costs (Billions) $0.290 $1.66 $5.58 $6.25 $14.71

O&M Costs, Annual 

(Millions) $103 $156 $171 $173 $304

Revenue, Annual (Millions) $77 $119 $139 $149 $245

Total Annual 

[Deficit]/Surplus (Millions) [$26] [$37] [$32] [$24] [$59]

Operating Ratio (percent 

O&M costs covered by 

revenue)

75% 76% 81% 86% 81%

Cost Effectiveness 

(Annualized O&M Cost per 

Rider) 

$64.38 $67.83 $65.77 $61.79 $70.70

[Subsidy]/Surplus per Rider

(rounded) [$16] [$16.] [$12.] [$9] [$14]

 1 Capital Costs are in 2015 dollars

Page ES-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit ES-5—Effectiveness of Alternatives in Meeting Performance Objectives

Objective/Alternative Base 90A 90B 110 1251

Improve System-Wide 

On-Time Performance X    /X

(Express/Regional)

Reduce Travel Time O + + + / +

(Express/Regional)

Increase Service 

Frequency X + + + /+

(Express/Regional)

Attract Ridership O    

Reduce Automobile 

Trips O + + + 

Minimize Impact on 

Freight Rail Service O O + + O

Notes: 

1 Performance on the new express service and the legacy regional service will differ, as explained in Chapter 6.

Rating System:  Strongly supports program goals and objectives; + Supports program goals and objectives; O Neutral regarding 

program goals or objectives; X Contrary to program goals or objectives

• The Base Alternative would result in the lowest annual ridership of all the alternatives, at 1.6 

million (year 2035). All Build Alternatives would significantly exceed this value.

• The Base Alternative would have the slowest average speed (51 mph) and longest trip time of 

all the alternatives (9 hours: 06 minutes between New York City and Niagara Falls).

• The Base Alternative would not result in improved service frequencies. The Base Alternative 

would not provide any improvement in scheduled service. All other alternatives would 

increase the number of daily trains operated as compared to the existing service.

• The Base Alternative would be the least effective alternative in diverting auto users to 

passenger rail and improving air quality by reducing vehicular emissions. Auto diversions 

increase in direct response to increasing average speed and reduced trip times among major 

origin/destination pairs. 

• Delivering only 83 percent OTP, the Base Alternative would not meet program service 

reliability goals of 90 percent OTP. All of the other Build Alternatives would exceed the 90

percent OTP target.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-17

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

The following summarizes the effectiveness of the Build Alternatives in meeting the program’s 

stated goals and performance objectives. 

• Alternative 90A strongly supports the performance objectives of improving system-wide ontime performance and attracting ridership. Alternative 90A also supports the objectives of 

reducing travel times, increasing service frequency, and reducing automobile trips. Alternative 

90A is neutral with regard to the objective to minimize adverse effects on freight train 

operations.

• Alternatives 90B and 110 would both create a segregated rail corridor, by providing exclusive 

third and fourth tracks for use by passenger trains. These alternatives would both strongly 

support the goals of improving system-wide on-time performance and attracting ridership. 

These alternatives would also support the goals of reducing travel times, increasing service 

frequency, reducing automobile trips, and minimizing impacts on freight rail service. 

• Benefits from Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 all are realized soon after initiation of 

construction; with these benefits increasing steadily throughout the entire term of the program

as many important track, signal, yard, and grade-crossing improvements are implemented. 

• Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 all would enhance service for each station destination along

the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: Albany-Rensselaer, Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, 

Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo-Depew, Buffalo Exchange Street and Niagara Falls Stations.

• Alternative 125 express service strongly supports the program performance objectives of 

improving system-wide on-time performance, reducing travel times, increasing service 

frequency, attracting ridership, and reducing automobile trips. The regional service (legacy 

service) maintained along the existing Empire Corridor for Alternative 125 would support the 

goals of increasing service frequency and reducing travel time and would be contrary to the 

goal of improving system-wide on-time performance. Alternative 125 would be neutral in

terms of minimizing impact on freight rail service. Alternative 125 would have an extremely 

high capital and annual operating cost, requiring the highest public subsidies (after the Base 

Alternative), and has the greatest potential for environmental and community impacts.

• Alternative 125 would not be completed until 2035, due to the need to construct an entirely 

new right-of-way through undeveloped areas, so the mobility benefits associated with 

Alternative 125 would not occur until then. The public would receive no transportation 

benefits from Alternative 125 until the first major new segment of track – from Albany to 

Syracuse – is completed, around 2025. Even then, for travelers destined for Rochester or 

Buffalo/Niagara Falls, true high-speed service would not be available until 2030 or possibly 

later. During the period of its construction, travelers would continue to receive only the 

benefits available from the Base Alternative.

• Alternative 125 does not provide service enhancements to several existing station 

destinations on the Empire Corridor West including: Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, Rome, 

and Niagara Falls. Benefits at these destinations are limited to the benefits described in the 

Base Alternative as the existing regional legacy service would still be provided.

Page ES-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

ES-4.2. Comparison of Operational Performance and Costs

Selecting a preferred alternative among several options involves weighing and balancing costs and 

impacts against operational and mobility benefits. Exhibit ES-4 presents a tabular summary of 

performance measures for each alternative, such as service frequency, average speeds, travel times, 

time savings, on-time performance, and ridership. This exhibit also presents cost considerations, 

such as capital and operating/maintenance costs, revenues, deficits, cost-effectiveness, and 

subsidies, for all five alternatives. 

Mobility can be measured in terms of improved passenger and freight movement as expressed by 

higher speeds and schedule frequency (for rail services), and improved reliability. A significant 

additional factor in judging relative appeal among the alternatives is how quickly their benefits 

could be available to travelers: all else being equal, alternatives that yield benefits sooner are 

preferable. A synopsis of strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives from a cost and operational 

standpoint is presented in this section. Key findings shown in Exhibit ES-4 include:

• Alternative 110 produces the greatest transportation benefits at the lowest per-rider 

cost subsidy; at approximately $9 per trip, which would be 25 percent less than the next 

most cost-effective Alternative 90B ($12 per trip) and just over 43 percent less than the Base 

Alternative value ($16.25 per trip).

• Alternative 110’s relatively high ridership and moderate operating cost produces the 

highest recovery of costs through ticket sales, 86 percent, compared to 81 percent for the 

next best alternatives (Alternatives 90B and 125) and a low of 75 percent for the Base 

Alternative.

• Alternative 125 would produce the highest ridership; however, Alternative 125 would 

relegate travelers from Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome to the use of regional 

train service on the existing corridor. Moreover, because of limited train slots over MetroNorth south of Poughkeepsie and schedule constraints on the Amtrak Empire Connector 

between Spuyten-Duyvil and New York City (on which both the high-speed and regional 

services would operate), there would be little value in transferring between regional and highspeed services at Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester or Buffalo. Therefore, the benefits of 

Alternative 125 would not be enjoyed by Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome passengers 

(even with a transfer), while the other Build Alternatives would confer their benefits on the 

entire rail traveling population. 

• Alternative 125 is the most costly alternative: at $14.71 billion, it would cost more than 

twice as much as the next most costly alternative (Alternative 110). 

• The Base Alternative has the lowest capital cost, but results in the fewest transportation 

benefits, and fails in significant terms to achieve the program goals.

• Alternative 125 would take the longest time to confer travel benefits in the Empire 

Corridor. Because a new right-of-way must be assembled, acquired, constructed and placed 

into service, no benefits would be available until the first major Albany-Syracuse segment can 

be completed, around 2025. Other alternatives begin conferring benefits within 2 to 5 years of 

the start of construction, likely in the 2015 to 2020 time period, with benefits continually 

increasing as additional improvements – signals, track, switches, grade crossings and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-19

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

separations, bridges – are introduced in succeeding construction phases.

• Alternatives 90B and 110 would provide the best future performance for freight rail 

operation in the corridor. The other Build Alternatives would allow freight trains to operate 

as well as or better than the Base Alternative. Alternatives 90B and 110 would provide 

segregated tracks and would provide the greatest relief from potential future congestion delay. 

With Alternatives 90B and 110, freight train delay would decrease and average speeds would 

increase the most among all alternatives. Average trip times would show the greatest 

improvement under Alternative 110. Freight train travel time variability, a measure of service 

reliability, is expected to be similar across all five alternatives.

ES-4.3. Potential Environmental Impacts

This Tier 1 EIS identifies a broad, corridor-level overview of potential environmental impacts of the 

five program alternatives. Evaluations are based on conceptual designs and Geographic 

Information System (GIS) and file-based resource mapping, suitable for making corridor-wide, 

service-level decisions for the Empire Corridor. Upon selection of an alternative at the conclusion 

of this Tier 1 evaluation, the quantitative extent of impacts will be determined during Tier 2 

evaluations and NEPA documentation, as specific projects, e.g., bridges, grade crossings, signal and 

track improvements, are advanced through design. 

Exhibit ES-6 compares the potential impacts of the alternatives using a relative rating system to 

distinguish the lowest (designated L) to highest (designated H) impact potential among the 

alternatives. A summary of the findings for all the social, cultural and natural resource categories is 

discussed in Chapter 4. 

Each alternative would affect the societal, cultural and natural environment differently. The Base 

Alternative would have the lowest potential for impact. Alternative 90A, consisting of 20 projects 

conducted largely within existing rights-of-way, would also be expected to have minimal impacts. 

Alternatives 90B would involve work extending outside of the right-of-way, and impacts would be 

even greater with track construction extending further outside of the right-of-way with Alternative 

110. Overall, Alternative 125 has the highest potential for impact of all the alternatives, with

construction of a new segregated corridor and sections of elevated tracks where the railroad 

extends over the existing Empire Corridor. If Alternative 125 is selected for further consideration, 

design in Tier 2 will be advanced and will consider ways to further avoid and minimize impacts 

associated with this alternative.

Details of the social, cultural, and natural resource impacts of each alternative are discussed in 

Chapter 4 of this document, and a brief overview of the environmental impacts of the alternatives is 

provided in the following section. Exhibit 6-11 provides a more detailed summary on impacts of 

each alternative on each environmental resource category. 

Page ES-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit ES-6—Comparison of Alternatives in Selected Impact Areas

Alternative/

Impact Area

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Land Use L L M M H

Community L L L M H

Historic L M H H M1

Parks L L L M H

Visual L L M M H

Farmland L L M M H

Waterbodies L M M M H

Floodplains L L M M H

Wetlands L L M M H

Wildlife L L M M H

Air Quality L B B B B

Energy/ 

Greenhouse Gas L B-L B-L B-M B-H

Noise/Vibration L M M M H

L Potential for adverse effect is lowest among the alternatives

M Potential for adverse effect is moderate among the alternatives

H Potential for adverse effect is highest among the alternatives

B Long-term Beneficial Impact

1 The undeveloped nature of the 125 Study Area may contribute to the lack of documented historic resources.

• Land Use Impacts: Alternative 125 would require the assembly and acquisition of public 

and private lands along the 280-mile Albany-to-Buffalo corridor. An estimated two to 

three thousand acres of land would be needed. Notwithstanding efforts to minimize adverse 

effects, the construction of an essentially sealed corridor with limited opportunities for 

crossings could be expected to have an impact on community cohesion and large-scale land 

uses which may be bisected by the high-speed rail corridor. If Alternative 125 is selected for 

further consideration, additional location analyses will include avoidance and minimization of 

property impacts and impacts on sensitive land uses. By comparison, property acquisition 

requirements of the other alternatives that follow the existing Empire Corridor would be 

considerably less than that for Alternative 125. Alternative 110 would involve the next greatest 

property displacements, affecting approximately 53 areas in 8 counties. Alternative 90B would 

affect approximately 9 areas in 6 counties. Property displacements with the Base and 

Alternative 90A are anticipated to be minimal. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-21

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

• Community and Public Facility Impacts: Alternative 125 has the potential to affect 13

community/publicly used facilities (including cemeteries, privately owned golf 

courses/golf clubs, and a school ballfield) in 8 counties largely where it extends on new 

right-of-way. If Alternative 125 is advanced, additional location analyses will consider ways to 

avoid or minimize impacts on these publicly accessible facilities. By comparison, Alternative 

110 is projected to have potential effects on 4 community facilities (e.g., fire stations, post 

office) in 1 county; the other alternatives are not expected to have any direct impacts to 

community facilities.

• Historic and Archaeological Resource Impacts/Section 4(f) Uses: Alternatives 90B and 

110 would have the greatest potential to affect historic and cultural resources, with 302

to 292 archaeological/architectural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for both 

direct and indirect impacts. Alternative 90A is likely to have moderate effects, with 100 

resources within the APE. The Base Alternative would likely have only minor effects, with 26

resources within the APE. Alternative 125 would largely maintain elevated tracks within the 

existing ROW where it overlaps with the existing Empire Corridor. However, Alternative 125 

would involve greater impacts than the Base Alternative, potentially affecting 123 resources 

within the APE, depending on the footprint for elevated structures that will carry the gradeseparated tracks over the existing tracks. Alternative 125 will be developed along new right-ofway generally away from population centers where most historic structures are found. Due to 

the undeveloped nature of the areas bisected by Alternative 125, historic and archaeological 

resources may not be fully documented. Alternative 125 would also have the greatest potential 

interaction with and use of tribal land. The Programmatic Agreement (included as Appendix H) 

addresses the process by which FRA and NYSDOT intend to comply with Section 106 for 

undertakings occurring on tribal lands or where adverse effects to historic properties of a 

religious or cultural significance to a tribe occur off tribal land. If this alternative is advanced 

for further consideration in Tier 2, efforts will be made to avoid impacts on historic resources in 

locating the new rail corridor. 

• Parks and Recreational Facilities Impacts/Section 4(f) Uses: Alternative 125 has the 

greatest potential effect on parks and recreational facilities, with 9 such facilities in 5 

counties potentially affected (including an Oneida Nation-owned golf course). If 

Alternative 125 is advanced, the additional location analyses in Tier 2 will avoid or minimize 

impacts on these facilities to the extent practicable. With the possible exception of two 

crossings of the Mohawk River and Erie Canal for Alternatives 90B and 110, only Alternative 

110 would have any other potential effect on recreational facilities, potentially affecting one 

county park.

• Visual Impacts: Alternative 125 would have the greatest potential for adverse visual 

impacts. Alternative 125 would create a new 100-foot-wide railroad right-of-way that would 

be electrified (with overhead catenary) in what are today largely open undeveloped and 

moderately developed areas. Alternative 125 would also create an elevated structure in 

densely populated urban centers (Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo), which would be more 

visible than the at-grade railroad. Both Alternatives 90B and 110 would involve track 

construction extending outside of the right-of-way, which could result in additional clearing and 

property displacements, but which would otherwise result in minor visual effects. The Base 

Alternative is entirely confined to the existing railroad right-of-way, and is expected to have no 

such effects.

Page ES-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Farmlands Impacts: Alternative 125 would have the most disruptive impact on 

farmland, potentially bisecting and isolating sections of prime farmlands and “farmlands 

of statewide significance” in 12 counties. By comparison, Alternative 110 would affect prime 

farmlands in at least 4 counties and Alternative 90B in at least 3 counties. Alternative 90A has 

only minor effects on farmland, potentially affecting agricultural districts in only 1 county. The 

Base Alternative is confined entirely to the existing railroad right-of-way, and is expected to 

have no such effects.

• Impacts on Waterbodies/Rivers: Alternative 125 would have the greatest potential for 

impacts on waterbodies, potentially affecting 361 such resources along Empire Corridor 

West. The Base Alternative would have the least potential for impact on surface water

resources, potentially affecting 68 crossings. The other alternatives are anticipated to have 

moderate potential for impact relative to the other alternatives, with between 107 to 218

surface water crossings potentially affected.

• Wetlands Impacts: Alternative 125 would have a the greatest potential for impact on 

wetlands, relative to the other alternatives, with 177 new wetland crossings Alternatives 

110 and 90B would have a moderate potential for impact, potentially affecting 118 to 137 

wetland crossings. Alternative 90A and the Base Alternative would have a relatively minor 

potential for impact, potentially affecting 54 to 84 wetland crossings.

• Air Quality Impacts. Alternative 125 has the greatest potential benefit to air quality in 

some regions of the corridor, while it has the potential to adversely affect air quality in 

other regions of the corridor (the differences between the areas are a consequence of the 

distribution of on-road versus rail trips). The other alternatives would result in negligible 

changes in regional emissions, with the Base Alternative serving as the basis for comparison. 

While increased rail emissions would not adversely affect local air quality, some very minor 

local benefits may occur near roadways where trips are reduced. Some increases in pollutant 

concentrations may occur near rail stations, increasing from Alternative 90A to 90B, 110, and 

125, which will be subject to further analysis in Tier 2.

• Energy and Greenhouse Gases Impacts: Alternative 125 is likely to require the greatest 

quantity of energy and materials for construction. Thus, it has the greatest potential to 

adversely affect net energy and greenhouse gases (accounting for the energy and GHG 

emissions from construction and reduced on-road emissions). Other alternatives have 

successively lesser adverse impacts. Alternative 90A would have a potential beneficial impact 

starting approximately 20 years after construction.

• Noise/Vibration Impacts: Alternative 125 has the potential for noise impacts in areas 

where no railroads currently operate. In this respect, it is the only alternative to introduce 

railroad noise in areas that are not already experiencing it. With all alternatives, including the 

Base Alternative, potential noise impacts along the Empire Corridor/Niagara Branch are 

expected to be moderate to severe in more urbanized areas, between New York City and 

Schenectady, between Syracuse and Rochester, and between Buffalo and Niagara Falls. Noise 

impacts are also predicted along the three new alignment segments of Alternative 125. There is 

also a potential for vibration impacts along new corridor segments.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-23

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

ES-5. How will impacts be mitigated?

On a broad, corridor-level basis, the Tier 1 EIS discusses strategies to mitigate potential impacts. 

These strategies will be further delineated during the Tier 2 analyses, which will include thorough 

inventories of resources to determine effects, and refinements in design to avoid and minimize 

environmental impacts. Impacts that cannot be avoided will be mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

Mitigation strategies presented in Chapter 4 of this Tier 1 EIS will be further defined during Tier 2 

evaluations. Tier 2 also will include ongoing discussions with federal and state authorities, regional 

and local governments, and the public to mitigate potential impacts. As needed federal, state and 

local permits and approvals, which will require best management practices and site-specific 

mitigation design and post-construction monitoring, will be obtained during final design.

ES-6. How will the program be financed?

Transportation infrastructure and services are typically supported by a combination of capital and 

operating funding from various sources. For the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, capital 

funds would be provided primarily by FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), NYSDOT and, where station upgrades are incorporated into the 

program, municipal governments and regional transportation authorities. 

It is anticipated that FRA funding would be provided under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Program. For projects to be eligible for FRA funds, they must be advanced through the FRA’s

process. This Tier 1 Draft EIS satisfies FRA’s procedural requirements, including documentation 

required under NEPA. 

Where additional funding may be sought from FTA or other federal grant programs, projects must 

be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Projects also would be 

included in the New York State Rail Plan, which outlines all of the state’s rail system needs for both 

passenger and freight service. During Tier 2, financial analysis will be refined for the selected

alternative, as cost and revenue estimates are improved and as more detailed engineering and cash 

flow modeling are performed. As individual projects are advanced and costs are refined, the 

specific projects of the selected alternative will be incorporated into the New York State Rail Plan 

and the STIP. 

ES-7. What is the program schedule?

The program schedule will vary depending on which alternative is selected. For the Base 

Alternative, construction is anticipated to start as early as 2013, with a scheduled completion of 

2020. The Build Alternatives would be completed in 2035. Improvements in maximum and 

average speed (benefits) would accrue in steps. For Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110, approximately 

25 percent of the benefit would accrue at the end of each five-year construction interval, with the 

completion of each new segment of segregated track. While Alternative 125 also would be 

completed in 2035, due to the extensive new construction, maximum and average speed benefits 

would not begin accruing until 2025.

Page ES-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS

ES-8. Who will decide which alternative is selected and how can I be 

involved in this decision?

NYSDOT and FRA will determine the preferred alternative following extensive public involvement 

and agency coordination programs. This will include opportunities for comment on the Tier 1 Draft 

EIS in writing and during public hearings that will be held. The program’s public involvement 

program is a multifaceted program that utilizes several media to engage and inform the public and 

other key stakeholders. A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was developed to identify key contacts 

within targeted audiences, such as government agencies and organizations, public offices, interest 

groups, civic and business groups, present and potential riders/users, the media and the general 

public. In addition, the PIP identified NEPA cooperating and participating agencies that were 

invited to participate in the program. The selection of an alternative at the end of the Tier 1 process 

will be made by FRA based upon a recommendation from NYSDOT. The FRA’s decision will be 

articulated in a Record of Decision that the FRA will issue. 

ES-8.1. Public Outreach Program

The High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program has solicited early and continuous feedback from the 

public and from federal, state, regional, and local agencies and stakeholders. The program has

encouraged open discussion of program details and issues and provided opportunities for 

comments and questions. These efforts will continue throughout the environmental review of the 

program. Public outreach has included:

• Public scoping meetings and open houses,

• Stakeholder coordination and periodic mailings,

• Newsletters and informational materials disseminated at key points during the program

development process,

• Media outreach, and

• Program website.

ES-8.2. Agency Coordination

At the onset of the program, appropriate federal, state, regional and local agencies were identified 

as having a role and/or interest in the program. NYSDOT and FRA submitted more than 37 formal 

letters of invitation to NEPA cooperating and/or participating agencies. The roles and 

responsibilities of cooperating and/or participating agencies are established under the 

environmental review provisions of SEQR and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.5).

NYSDOT has formed a project advisory committee, the Empire Project Advisory Committee (EPAC) 

to assist NYSDOT and FRA in progressing the environmental process. Additionally, two of the 

program’s key partners, Amtrak and CSXT, were briefed on the status of the alternatives 

development phase of the program. Amtrak and CSXT will continue to be involved in the High 

Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program as it proceeds through the Tier 1 EIS process and continues 

into Tier 2 evaluations. Agency coordination has also included, and will continue to include,

consultations with federally recognized tribes and consulting parties pursuant to the National 

Historic Preservation Act.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page ES-25

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Executive Summary

ES-9. Who can I contact for more information?

For more information on this Tier 1 EIS and the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, please 

contact:

• Michelle Fishburne, Federal Railroad Administration

202- 493-0398 or michelle.fishburne@dot.gov

• David Chan, New York State Department of Transportation

518-485-1918 or david.chan@dot.ny.gov

Page ES-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS

1. Introduction and Purpose and Need

1.1. Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the New York State Department of Transportation 

(NYSDOT) are preparing a tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate proposed 

system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, 

connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara 

Falls, New York (refer to Exhibit 1-1). In April of 2010, NYSDOT received a $1 million grant from 

FRA to conduct analyses of potential Empire Corridor improvements, including preparation of a

Service Development Plan, Tiered EIS, and other necessary studies.1 In addition, Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) contributed $1.8 million to the Tier 1 EIS preparation, and New York State 

provided matching funds in the amount of $3.5 million (New York State rail funds).

The Empire Corridor connects New York City with the largest cities in New York State, extending 

north through Yonkers and Poughkeepsie, and turning west at Albany to extend through 

Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and terminating at Niagara Falls. The Empire 

Corridor consists of three main segments: 

• Empire Corridor South, extending 142 miles north from Penn Station to just north of AlbanyRensselaer Station; 

• Empire Corridor West, extending 294 miles west from approximately one mile north of the 

Albany-Rensselaer Station to just east of the Buffalo-Exchange Street Station; and the 

• Niagara Branch, extending 27 miles west from a point located just east of Buffalo-Exchange 

Street Station to Niagara Falls. 

The Empire Corridor is one of eleven designated high-speed rail corridors nationwide. Key federal 

legislation relevant to the development of high-speed passenger rail service on the Empire Corridor 

includes: 

• The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (PL 105-178, June 9, 1998), 

supplemented the nationwide list of five high-speed rail corridors authorized under the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (PL 102-240, December 18, 

1991).

2

 TEA-21 authorized the Empire Corridor, from New York City to Albany to Buffalo, New 

York, as a high-speed rail corridor. ISTEA defined “high-speed rail corridors” as corridors 

where trains operating at speeds of 90 miles per hours (mph) could be reasonably expected.

• The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (Division B, Title III 

of Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4907, October 16, 2008), as the first passenger rail 

authorization since 1997, called for significant improvements in the nation’s intercity passenger 

rail, including the development of high-speed rail corridors. This act authorized the 

1

/ FRA Agreement Number FR-IPR-0002-10-01-00, from 05/03/2010 to 05/31/2013. 2

/ The five high-speed rail corridors authorized under ISTEA were: the Midwest, providing 3 links from Chicago, IL to Detroit, MI and St. 

Louis, MO and Milwaukee, WI; Florida, linking Miami with Orlando and Tampa; California, linking San Diego and Los Angeles with the San 

Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento via the San JoaquinValley; Southeast, connecting Charlotte, NC, Richmond, VA and Washington, D.C.; 

and Pacific Northwest, linking Eugene and Portland, OR with Seattle, WA and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1-1

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need

Exhibit 1-1—Program Location Map

appropriation of funds to establish several new passenger rail grant programs, including capital 

investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service and high-speed corridor 

development. FRA consolidated these and other closely related programs into the High-Speed 

Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. 

• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (PL 111-5) (February 17, 

2009) and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for 2010 (Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

Page 1-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS

(PL 111-117)) provided funding for the formation of the federal High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail program (HSIPR). The Empire Corridor was one of the high-speed rail corridors 

to receive funding in 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

1.1.1. Tiered NEPA EIS

This EIS has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545); and 

the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations (6 

New York Codes, Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] Part 617). The FRA and NYSDOT are using a 

tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28, to complete the environmental review of the 

program. “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to environmental reviews for 

complex projects, such as the Empire Corridor Program. 

The initial phase (“Tier 1 EIS”) of this process addresses broad corridor-level issues and sets forth a 

package of follow-on studies, proposals, and projects. The Tier 1 EIS evaluates a range of 

alternatives to meet the program needs of reducing infrastructure constraints and accommodating 

existing and projected demand. It establishes specific performance objectives for:

• Increasing train frequency and on-time performance (OTP), 

• Reducing train travel time and automobile trips along the corridor, 

• Attracting additional passengers, and 

• Minimizing interference with freight rail operations. 

The Tier 1 EIS identifies broad-based operational changes and investments in infrastructure and 

rolling stock (locomotives and passenger coaches) necessary to achieve those performance 

objectives. The Tier 1 EIS will result in the following decisions and actions:

• Define the purpose and need for the proposed action including goals and objectives;

• Develop criteria and screen alternatives to eliminate those that do not meet the purpose and 

need of the proposed action;

• Identify the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered, consistent with the current and 

planned use of the corridor, existing services within and adjacent to the program area, and 

other planned improvements;

• Identify the general alignment(s) and general right-of-way requirements of the reasonable 

alternatives;

• Identify the infrastructure and equipment investment requirements for each of the reasonable 

alternatives;

• Identify the travel times, service schedule, frequencies, and stations serviced for the reasonable 

alternative(s);

• Identify environmental constraints and considerations and perform high-level environmental 

review and evaluation of the reasonable alternatives under consideration;

• Identify, in the Final Tier 1 EIS, a preferred High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, including 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1-3

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need

identification of the required individual capital improvements needed to achieve the program 

(selected alternative); and

• Select, in the Record of Decision, an Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, 

including identified individual capital improvements and the timing and sequencing for their

implementation.

If a Build Alternative is selected at the conclusion of the Tier 1 process, the Tier 2 NEPA 

document(s) will then evaluate in greater detail the component projects of the selected Empire 

Corridor Program alternative chosen in Tier 1. Tier 2 will include detailed analyses based on 

refined engineering designs and operational plans and will identify site-specific environmental 

consequences. If avoidance and minimization of impacts cannot be achieved, site-specific 

mitigation measures for the selected alternative will be developed. Input from the public and from 

reviewing agencies will be solicited during both tiers.

1.1.2. Corridor and Program History

The Empire Corridor has been a vital rail transportation route of national significance for almost 

200 years. This transportation route extends north through the Hudson Valley region and west 

through the Mohawk Valley region, south of the Adirondacks and north of the Catskills, to Buffalo 

on Lake Erie. The corridor developed along the historic “Water Level Route” that followed the canal 

system connecting Lake Erie and the Hudson River to transport goods and services to and from 

New York City. For many decades, the railroad was operated by the New York Central Railroad as a 

four-track speedway between Albany and Buffalo, carrying passenger and freight trains along 

express and local tracks. The Niagara Branch, extending north from Buffalo along Lake Erie, the 

Niagara River, and into Canada at Niagara Falls, was operated as a two-track shared use corridor. 

The transportation afforded by the canals and railroads connecting to the Great Lakes helped to 

establish New York City as an international trade center and the Atlantic port for the Midwest, and 

to transform Buffalo into the state’s second largest city. This network also enabled growth and 

development of the other major metropolitan areas (including the five other largest cities in the 

state) along this route. 

Use of highways and airports constructed over the last generation has eclipsed rail use in the 

Empire Corridor for longer distance trips between upstate and western New York to New York City. 

The construction of the New York State Thruway (Thruway), consisting of Interstate Route 90 from 

Buffalo to Albany and Interstate Route 87 from Albany to New York City located roughly parallel to 

the Empire Corridor, has increased the reliance on automotive travel. The area is also serviced by 

regional airports, providing service from Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, and Albany to New 

York City. Through the second half of the 20th century, multiple factors, including competition 

from highways and airports, contributed to the decline of the railroads that led to bankruptcy of 

most of the railroad companies in New York and the Northeast by the early 1970s. Starting in the 

1960s, the New York Central Railroad (later Penn Central and Conrail) removed track 

infrastructure located along the Empire Corridor to reduce maintenance, operating and real estate 

property tax costs; creating a two-track system between Albany-Rensselaer Station and Buffalo, 

and a single track line on portions of the Niagara Branch. 

In 1970, the Rail Passenger Service Act established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) to provide intercity rail service in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Prior to the 

establishment of Amtrak, intercity passenger rail service was provided by the private railroad 

Page 1-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS

freight companies. Amtrak assumed the common carrier obligations of private railroads in 

exchange for a right to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost.

The possibility of instituting high-speed rail service along the Empire Corridor has been the focus of 

studies dating back twenty years. Developments in recent years have advanced rail planning and 

funding at both the federal and state levels culminating in this Tier 1 EIS program to evaluate highspeed passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor. Exhibit 1-2 presents a timeline of the 

recent program planning and development milestones for high-speed rail in the Empire Corridor. 

1.1.3. CSXT Agreements

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), a private freight railroad company, owns more than half of the 

Empire Corridor (Exhibit 2-1). While recognizing the Federal NEPA and New York state SEQR legal 

framework upon which the environmental review process must be based, this Tier 1 Draft EIS has 

been developed in consideration of two agreements between NYSDOT and CSXT (dated May 28, 

2010), both crafted to preserve the independence and integrity of the EIS process: “Framework 

Agreement Concerning Certain Rights and Responsibilities with Respect to New York High Speed

Exhibit 1-2—High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Planning Timeline

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1-5

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need

Rail” and “Agreement for Progressing a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement” (“Agreements”) 

(attached as Appendix J). 

CSXT has agreed to work with NYSDOT as the EIS is being developed by providing assistance and 

technical guidance, as well as documents and access to its property, as outlined in the Agreements. 

CSXT has also agreed to take into consideration the results of the EIS, as well as the views of the 

FRA, State of New York, Amtrak, the Port of New York/New Jersey and its customers, but at the 

same time, CSXT has stated that it has the obligation to preserve and grow its freight rail capacity 

and will maintain sole discretion to decide the safety and use of its property. 

The position taken by CSXT and agreed to by NYSDOT in the Agreements will have to be considered 

in implementation of any selected alternative chosen by NYSDOT and FRA on property owned by 

CSXT. One principle set forth in the Agreements is that CSXT is entitled to compensation for the 

use, acquisition or diminishment in value of its property resulting from any project advanced as a 

result of the EIS. The development of the cost of alternatives must and will include the recognition 

of this principle, although the negotiation of the actual value of any compensation to CSXT is not 

part of this Tier 1 EIS, but will be developed if and when necessary as part of Tier 2 program 

advancement.

For these reasons, independent analysis by CSXT of the impacts to CSXT property will be extremely 

important and valuable to NYSDOT and FRA as the NEPA process continues. That analysis and the 

results of public hearings and comment on the Tier 1 Draft EIS will be reflected in the Tier 1 Final 

EIS.

1.2. Problem Statement

The existing Empire Corridor passenger rail service is negatively impacted by inadequate service 

levels, operational constraints, and delays resulting from pervasive conflicts with freight traffic. As 

a result, passenger rail service is not viewed by travelers as a viable, attractive transportation 

option, particularly to and from points west of Albany-Rensselaer Station. 

Existing conditions limit Empire Corridor service. Simulated existing (2008, pre-recession) 

passenger service along Empire Corridor West indicates that passenger train on-time performance 

(OTP) is less than 48 percent, with an average train speed of approximately 50 mph and an average 

train lateness of almost 28 minutes. Simulated existing freight train performance along Empire 

Corridor West indicates over 38 train minutes of delay per 100 freight train miles operated, 

indicating congestion ahead, and a high variability in average freight train trip times, indicating 

service inconsistency.3 Furthermore, although maximum authorized speeds along portions of the

Empire Corridor are 79 mph on the Buffalo to Hoffmans (west of Albany-Rensselaer) segment and 

110 mph on the Hoffmans to New York City segment (refer to Exhibit 1-1), actual operating speeds 

along the majority of the rail corridor are considerably lower due to track conditions, alignment, 

and obsolete or inadequate track and signal systems which constrain capacity and speed.

Existing passenger rail service is infrequent relative to other available modes of transportation. For 

example, there is a strong travel market between New York City and Albany, and passenger rail 

captures only 11 percent of that travel market. Currently, thirteen weekday trips are available, 

with the earliest Albany-Rensselaer arrival time of approximately 9:30 a.m. This limited service 

3/ LTK Engineering Services. Rail Network Operations Simulation Results. Prepared for NYSDOT. June 2012. Network simulations for this 

Tier 1 EIS reflect the rail network along Empire Corridor West. The Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan, 2005, includes 

rail operations network simulation results and proposed actions for Empire Corridor South.

Page 1-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS

does not accommodate business weekday schedules. Additionally, travel by rail between New York 

City and Buffalo is not a viable option for a business traveler, given the existing frequency of service

and travel time. There are only four weekday trips between New York City and Buffalo. 

Furthermore, the trip from Buffalo to New York City can be made in less than two hours by air and 

under seven hours by car, compared to approximately eight hours by the existing Empire Corridor 

passenger service provided by Amtrak.

Despite these constraints and service limitations, ridership is growing. Ridership on the Empire 

Corridor has increased by 37 percent (387,304 passengers) over the past 10 years, to total more 

than 1.4 million passengers in 2011. Since 2001, ridership on the Buffalo to Albany-Rensselaer

portion of the corridor has more than doubled, at the same time freight and commuter rail volumes 

have grown. Projections through 2035 indicate that freight traffic will continue to increase. 

Forecasts for the Metro-North Railroad’s Hudson Line through 2020 also indicate projected 

increases of 28 percent. Congestion is expected to worsen as demand for passenger, commuter,

and freight rail grows. 

Existing and forecasted socioeconomic and transportation market conditions in the Empire 

Corridor indicate an opportunity for an improved Empire Corridor passenger rail service to further 

grow, offering a viable, alternative mode of intercity travel in the Empire Corridor.

1.3. Program Purpose 

The purpose of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program is to introduce higher passenger train 

speeds on the Empire Corridor and improve reliability, travel times, service frequency, and 

passenger amenities. The High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program will improve passenger rail 

service along the corridor and, in so doing, attract additional passengers, increase travel choices, 

and contribute to a balanced, multi-modal transportation system.

Improved service along the Empire Corridor will better connect the principal population centers of 

western New York State with Albany and New York City, further enhancing connections to 

Northeast Corridor passenger rail service (Philadelphia and Washington) and other markets 

(Midwest and New England), and facilitating international travel to Canada. Its location within one 

of the most populated regions in the country, and well as its importance to national and 

international freight traffic, underscores the importance of the Empire Corridor to regional 

development. Providing time-sensitive and efficient service will, in turn, promote economic vitality, 

improve quality of life for residents, and reduce automotive travel and emissions.

1.4. Program Needs

This program is being undertaken to meet the following needs: reduce infrastructure constraints

and accommodate existing and projected demand. 

1.4.1. Reduce Infrastructure Constraints 

The Empire Corridor is distinguished by its diversity of private and public ownership and mix of 

passenger and freight usage (refer to Exhibit 2-1 in Chapter 2). Empire Corridor West is the most

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1-7

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need

important and heavily used freight route in the state, carrying one of the highest volumes on the 

CSXT system nationwide. It is the major gateway to Canada; the Midwest; and the Port of New 

York/New Jersey, the third largest container port in the United States. 4 Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North), operating the Hudson 

Line commuter rail service on the southern half of Empire Corridor South, is the busiest commuter 

railroad in the country. 

Outside of the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak intercity passenger services run almost exclusively on 

railroads that are owned and controlled by private freight and commuter railroads. This can create 

delays due to freight and commuter train interferences, track work and slow orders, as well as 

other factors largely beyond the control of Amtrak. Freight trains generally operate at speeds 

slower than passenger trains, in accordance with FRA track class operating restrictions (refer to 

Section 2.4). Slower-moving freight trains have to move to sidings to let passenger trains pass or 

the faster-moving passenger train has to slow down behind the slower freight train. This does not 

allow for optimal usage of tracks. Overall, these problems in the Empire Corridor result in over 

161,000 minutes of annual delay, according to analysis of data provided to NYSDOT by Amtrak. 

This represents more than seven hours per day of total train delay to Amtrak trains in the corridor.

Speed restrictions are one of the most common causes of delay along Empire Corridor South 

between Albany-Rensselaer and Penn Stations. The competing use of the rail system, particularly 

on the Hudson Line by users with different operating requirements (mix of speeds, loads, and types 

of equipment) can cause congestion that trickles throughout the system. The Hudson Line has the 

greatest variety of types of users, and a delay in Albany can cause a train further south to miss its 

window, creating cascading delays that affect other operators. 

Passenger rail service in Empire Corridor West is also frequently delayed as a result of the volume 

of freight and passenger service that shares the corridor’s constrained infrastructure west of 

Albany-Rensselaer Station. While demand for service on the Empire Corridor has grown, the 

system is operating as a two-track system west of Schenectady, and is reduced to single-track on 

the more than 20-mile section between Hoffmans, west of Schenectady, and Albany. The singletrack section requires that a train may have to wait at Schenectady Station or Albany-Rensselaer 

Station for up to 18 minutes if a train is 

traveling in the opposing direction.5

Deferred infrastructure maintenance has 

resulted in areas of speed restrictions that 

further reduce capacity, including the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge between AlbanyRensselaer and Schenectady Stations, where 

speed is presently restricted to 20 mph. 

There are several yards and industrial lead 

tracks that also contribute to congestion and 

negatively affect travel times and reliability 

for both freight and passenger rail services. 

Infrastructure constraints on the Empire 

Corridor have been extensively documented 

in a number of planning studies. Key findings 

4/ In 2011, the Port of New York and New Jersey had the third highest cargo volume in the United States, following the Port of Los 

Angeles, with the highest cargo volume; and the Port of Long Beach, with the second highest cargo volume. 

5

/ High Speed Rail Task Force. Final Report: Connecting New York’s Future. January 2006.

Exhibit 1-3—Livingston Avenue Bridge

Page 1-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS

are noted as follows: 

• Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan (2010) identifies major challenges to the 

reliability and convenience of both existing and proposed intercity passenger rail service in the

Empire Corridor between New York City and Schenectady.6 Among the challenges identified 

are numerous chokepoints caused by obsolete or inadequate track and signal systems, which 

constrain capacity and speed. The Master Plan identifies the single-track sections of the 

segments between Albany and Schenectady as among the greatest points of conflict for intercity 

trains operating over the Empire Corridor. It indicates the need for a new Livingston Avenue 

Bridge and additional track and extended platform and yard facilities in the Albany-Rensselaer 

Station to alleviate current congestion and accommodate increased service. It also cites the 

need for improvements on freight-only infrastructure in this area to minimize conflicts between 

freight and intercity service. The Master Plan identifies capital investment programs by 

segment along the Empire Corridor from New York City to Schenectady to reduce or eliminate 

freight/passenger train conflicts, thus improving reliability and convenience of intercity 

passenger rail service. These improvements were based on specific projects identified in the 

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan and the New York State Rail Plan.7 The 

programs identified included the following segments:

o Empire Connection Improvements

o Hudson Line Commuter and Intercity Improvements

o Empire Corridor Improvements

o Albany-Rensselaer Station and Yard Capacity Improvements

o Positive Train Control

o Station Improvements

• The Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan (2005),

8 analyzes freight and passenger 

operations through 2020, and identifies infrastructure improvements to increase passenger 

train speeds to 125 mph. The plan analyzes the capacity of the system, identifies individual 

choke points, and cites specific improvements, such as track crossover switches, high-level

platforms, and additional areas of track and yard capacity upgrades, to improve the flow of rail 

traffic. 

• The New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force Action Program identifies the existing 

operational constraints on Empire Corridor West in its final report, Connecting New York’s 

Future (2006): “In the Albany to Buffalo Corridor, increasing freight traffic, greater distances 

and variable operating and track conditions are the major constraints. Over the long term, freight 

service and a quality passenger service cannot coexist on the same tracks at speeds over 90 mph. 

Empire Corridor service will not compete successfully with air travel for trips between Buffalo and 

New York City without a new dedicated passenger rail guideway.”9

’

6

/ The NEC Master Plan Working Group. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. May 2010. 7

/ NYSDOT. New York State Rail Plan – Strategies for a New Age. 2009.

8/ Systra Engineering. Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report (Document No. M40801-11/9518/STU-137).

Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation, November 2005.

9/ High Speed Rail Task Force. Final Report: Connecting New York’s Future. January 2006.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1-9

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need

1.4.2. Accommodate Existing and Projected Demand

As shown in Exhibit 1-4, Empire Corridor ridership has steadily increased over the past ten years. 

Rail ridership was approximately 1.4 million person-trips in 2011.10 

The New York State Rail Plan identifies the need to address capacity for projected increases in both 

the freight and passenger rail markets. The New York State Rail Plan notes: “Amtrak is seeing some 

of its largest percentage ridership increases along the Buffalo-Albany rail corridor despite the level of 

freight-related delay. With high gas prices, ridership is expected to keep growing; this increase will 

create pressure for more reliable service and, eventually, more frequency of passenger trains. At the 

same time, CSXT is expecting increases in freight rail business.”11

The Vision for 2020 in the New York State Rail Plan calls for an intercity passenger rail system to

transport double the ridership on the rail corridor between New York City and Albany, Albany and 

Buffalo, and between Albany and Montreal.

Studies forecast growth in both passenger and freight traffic. The Hudson Line Rail Corridor 

Transportation Plan (2005) anticipates that total rail traffic along the Hudson Line commuter rail 

line will increase by 28 percent by the year 2020.12 The United States Department of

Exhibit 1-4—Empire Corridor Ridership FY02 to FY11

Source: Amtrak, 2011. Note that Amtrak’s fiscal year operates from October 1 to September 30.

10/ 2009 is used as the base year for ridership analysis. 11/ NYSDOT. New York State Rail Plan – Strategies for a New Age. 2009. 12/ Systra Engineering. Hudson Line Rail Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report (Document No. M40801-11/95 18/STU-137). Prepared 

for Amtrak, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSXT, MTA Metro-North Railroad, NYSDOT. November 2005.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Empire Corridor West

Empire Corridor South

Page 1-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS

Transportation (U.S. DOT) forecasts growth of rail freight traffic by 88 percent by 2035,13 and cross

border rail shipments are expected to triple by 2035.14 A Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight 

Transportation Study estimates a major increase in rail freight shipments, from 47 million tons in 

2004 to 93 million tons by 2035.15 The Association of American Railroads forecasts that freight 

traffic on the Empire Corridor will increase by 50 percent to 100 percent by 2035.16 A study of rail 

freight traffic by the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC) forecasts 

almost 100 percent (96.7%) growth in rail carload and intermodal traffic between 2004 and 

2035.17 The growth in cross-border rail traffic was estimated by the Niagara Frontier Urban Area 

Freight Transportation Study to be 183.2 percent between 2006 and 2035.18

1.5. Performance Objectives

NYSDOT identified performance objectives for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program as 

measurable objectives that directly relate to the program purpose and need to reduce 

infrastructure constraints to accommodate existing and projected demand. These performance 

objectives include:

• Improve system-wide on-time performance (OTP) to at least 90 percent,

• Reduce travel time along all segments of the Empire Corridor,

• Increase the frequency of service (number of daily round trips) along Empire Corridor West 

beyond the existing four daily round trips,

• Attract additional passengers,

• Reduce automobile trips, thereby reducing highway congestion,

• Minimize interference with freight rail operations.

These six performance objectives are used to evaluate and rank the high-speed rail alternatives 

developed for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The environmental impacts of these 

alternatives are also considered, as presented in this Tier 1 Draft EIS, and will be an important 

factor in selecting the alternative to be advanced. 

1.6. Transportation-Related Goals

Broad-based transportation-related goals of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program are 

described as follows. 

13/ U.S. DOT Freight Analysis Framework, as cited by New York State Rail Plan (2009). 14/ Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study, as cited by New York State Rail Plan (2009). 15/ Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study Final Report, Project No. 06 Freight. Prepared for 

the GBNRTC, August 2010. 16/ Association of American Railroads. National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study (2007).

17/ GBNRTC. 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan Update. May 2010. Accessed September 27, 2011.

18/ Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study, Technical Memorandum No. 3: Freight 

Transportation Market Profiles, Project No6 Freight. March 6, 2009.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1-11

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need

• Increase travel choices by providing additional commuting and travel options for 

residents and workers. The program will provide increased intercity passenger rail access to 

major metropolitan areas and will provide additional commuting and other travel options for 

residents and workers. This improved transportation access will potentially boost both the 

number of jobs available and the ability of workers (particularly those without alternative

means of transportation) to access work locations, thereby expanding available labor markets. 

The program’s proposed rail passenger amenities, including improved station operations, 

accessibility, and parking, will help to attract additional passengers and will contribute toward 

expanding travel choices in the Empire Corridor. A U.S. Conference of Mayors’ report indicates 

that the potential travel efficiency gains through high-speed rail can lead to business 

productivity increases: car and truck travelers will benefit from reduced road congestion;

airport users will benefit from reduced airport congestion; and travelers without car access 

will benefit by traveling to places that were previously unavailable to them.19 Providing 

options for travelers and connecting the major metropolitan areas will improve the quality of 

life for Empire Corridor residents and workers.

• Contribute to economic revitalization by accommodating forecasted growth in 

population and employment and corridor rail freight operations. New York City is the 

nation’s largest economic center, and is one of the three largest economic centers in the world, 

along with London and Tokyo. Population growth, particularly growth in the New York 

metropolitan area, has brought corresponding growth in freight movement and commuter rail 

service levels. The U.S. Conference of Mayors’ report projects that economic benefits of New 

York City to Albany high-speed rail service to the Albany metropolitan area alone would range 

from $358 million (with 79/90 mph service) to $523 million (with 110 mph service) in

business sales for incremental-medium service, and would reach nearly $2.5 billion with 220 

mph service.20 Improving freight rail access in the corridor has national trade and economic 

implications as well, given the importance of the Buffalo and Niagara crossings, connections to 

the Port of New Jersey/New York and the Midwest, and freight movement on the line

connecting to these markets. 

• Improve environmental quality by facilitating rail use and reducing reliance on 

automobile travel, thereby reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Reducing reliance on automotive travel will provide benefits to air quality and will reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. A 2006 study, High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,21

calculated emissions saved and generated through institution of high-speed rail nationwide. 

The net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to high-speed rail service along the Empire 

Corridor was estimated to be almost half of one billion pounds annually of carbon dioxide 

emission. Benefits would accrue from not only diverting passenger trips from other modes, but 

also by facilitating freight rail use and future growth in rail. For each one percent increase in 

long-haul freight that changes from truck to rail, fuel savings would be approximately 111 

million gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by 1.2 million tons. 

19/ Economic Development Research Group, Inc. The Economic Impact of High Speed Rail and Cities and their Metropolitan Areas. 

Prepared by the U.S. Conference of Mayors (undated), released June 2010. 20/ Economic Development Research Group, Inc. The Economic Impact of High Speed Rail and Cities and their Metropolitan Areas. 

Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors (undated), released June 2010. 21/ Center for Clean Air Policy, Center for Neighborhood Technology. High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. January 2006. 

Accessed July 8, 2011. < http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf>

Page 1-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2. Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Section 2.1 presents an overview and route description of the existing Empire Corridor rail system. 

Section 2.2 describes the importance of the Empire Corridor to major markets, including the 

existing regional transportation market. Section 2.3 describes the linkages of the Empire Corridor 

to other rail routes. Sections 2.4 through 2.9 present the existing conditions of the Empire Corridor 

freight and passenger rail service relative to current rail operations, infrastructure, deficiencies, 

and safety considerations. 

2.1. Empire Corridor Rail System 

2.1.1. Railroad Ownership 

Exhibit 2-1 illustrates track ownership on the Empire Corridor. Amtrak owns, maintains, and 

dispatches the southernmost 20 miles of track on Empire Corridor South (west side line of former 

New York Central Railroad), from Penn Station to the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge that spans the Harlem 

River at the northern tip of Manhattan. Metro-North leases the track22 along the east side of the 

Hudson River, from the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge to Poughkeepsie, for its Hudson Line service with 

responsibility for maintenance and dispatching. With the exception of one short (6.8-mile) segment 

owned by Amtrak west of the Schenectady Station, located between the station and Hoffmans, CSXT 

is the owner of the Empire Corridor West rail infrastructure from Poughkeepsie to Niagara Falls. 

This CSXT corridor comprises the Hudson Subdivision (Poughkeepsie north to Albany-Rensselaer 

and west to Hoffmans); Selkirk Subdivision (Hoffmans to Amsterdam); Mohawk Subdivision 

(Amsterdam to Syracuse); Rochester Subdivision (Syracuse to Buffalo); Buffalo Terminal 

Subdivision in Buffalo; and Niagara Subdivision (Buffalo to Niagara Falls). 

In 2012, NYSDOT facilitated a lease agreement between CSXT and Amtrak for portions of the 

Empire Corridor between Poughkeepsie, Albany-Rensselaer, and Hoffmans, NY. When combined 

with previous lease agreements for portions of the corridor within this 94-mile segment, Amtrak 

assumed full responsibility for dispatching and maintenance from the northern boundary of MetroNorth control through Albany to Hoffmans, where CSXT’s freight-only Selkirk Branch joins the 

Empire Corridor. The 2012 lease agreement marks the first time in the corridor’s history that 

passenger-only carriers have controlled the entire Empire Corridor from New York to Albany and 

beyond. CSXT retains responsibility for the operation of freight trains within the territory leased by 

Amtrak as well as on the Metro-North Hudson Line. West of Hoffmans, CSXT remains responsible 

for maintenance and dispatching of the Empire Corridor. 

North of the Buffalo Terminal Subdivision, CSXT owns the Niagara Subdivision as far as CP-28. In 

December 2012, Amtrak took over ownership, control, and maintenance of approximately 0.37 mile 

of former CSXT and Canadian National Railway track from immediately west of CP-28 to the U.S.-

Canada international border on the Whirlpool Bridge. The Whirlpool Bridge, a railroad and 

vehicular passenger bridge located at the international border crossing, is owned and maintained 

by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

22/ Midtown TDR Ventures LLC (the company that now owns the assets of the former Penn Central Railroad) owns the right-of-way fee

interest. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-1 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Exhibit 2-1—Empire Corridor Ownership

2.1.2. Route Description

Empire Corridor South (New York City to Albany)

Empire Corridor South extends 142 miles (Mileposts [MPs] 0 to 14323) north from Penn Station to 

23/ Mileposts referenced in this EIS are measured south to north using Hudson Line mileposts from Grand Central Terminal. Mileposts

referenced extend north to Albany-Rennselaer, then east to west on Empire Corridor West. Although Empire Corridor South extends to 

Page 2-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

approximately one mile north of Albany-Rensselaer Station in Rensselaer County (refer to Exhibit 

2-3). This route continues from Manhattan through the Bronx (Bronx County), Yonkers and 

Croton-Harmon (Westchester County), Poughkeepsie (Dutchess County), extending to 

approximately one mile north of Albany-Rensselaer Station (Rensselaer County). The line runs 

through the Hudson Valley (Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia counties, passing close to 

Rockland, Orange, Ulster, and Greene counties on the opposite side of the Hudson River) north to 

the Capital District (which includes Rensselaer County). 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) operates 

Hudson Line commuter rail service (formerly Hudson River Line and New York Central Railroad) 

between Poughkeepsie and Grand Central Terminal (GCT) (MPs 0 to 73.5). Empire Corridor South 

consists of the Empire Connection and the Metro-North/CSXT Hudson Line. The Empire 

Connection runs from Penn Station, northward along the west side of Manhattan, across the Harlem 

Ship Canal at Spuyten Duyvil Bridge (refer to Exhibit 2-2), and then joins with Metro-North’s 

Hudson Line, a distance of 10.8 miles. 

The Hudson Line is double tracked north of the 

Croton-Harmon Station at Croton-on-Hudson 

(Milepost 33.2), with some three-track 

sections, and is mostly four tracks (two 

express and two local) and includes an 

electrified third rail to the south. The southern 

portion of the Hudson Line begins at 

interlocking Control Point (CP) 12 on the 

Hudson Line, where the Empire Connection 

from Penn Station joins Metro-North’s Hudson 

Line from GCT. The length of the segment is 

21.4 miles, ending at Croton-Harmon, MP 33.2. 

Portions of the Hudson Line have 110 mph 

passenger train operation and limited freight 

activity (approximately four trains a day). The Empire Corridor South has a capability of 

accommodating the second highest rail car weight limit class (286,000 pounds) for freight. MetroNorth operates between roughly 50 (weekend) and 77 (weekday) daily roundtrips along the 

Hudson Line, of which approximately half are express trains servicing Poughkeepsie and half are 

local trains to Croton-Harmon Station. Amtrak operates thirteen daily roundtrips (weekdays) along 

the Empire Corridor South between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City, with eleven daily 

roundtrips on the weekends. In addition to Empire Service to Buffalo and points beyond, this 

section of track also accommodates Amtrak service that extends north of Schenectady Station on 

the Canadian Pacific Railway to Montreal (Adirondack—one daily roundtrip) and Vermont (Ethan 

Allen Express—one daily roundtrip). There is also one daily connecting service from AlbanyRensselaer to Boston, Massachusetts. 

With few exceptions, the tracks generally follow the east shoreline of the Hudson River. The 

northern portion of the Metro-North Hudson Line begins at MP 33.2 at Croton-Harmon Station and 

ends at MP 73.5 at Poughkeepsie Station. The under running third rail electrification ends at

MP 143, the mileage from Penn Station to MP 143 totals to 142 miles. This is because the mileposts, as designated by the railroads, skip a 

mile where the Hudson line merges with the Empire Corridor at the Manhattan-Bronx county line near the Spuyten Duyvil Station. 

Exhibit 2-2 - Spuyten Duyvil Bridge over Harlem 

River

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-3 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Exhibit 2-3—Empire Corridor South

Croton-Harmon Station and all trains north of that point are operated with conventional diesel 

electric locomotives. Parts of this segment have sharper curvature than do segments to the south. 

These curves limit maximum speed to 60 to 70 mph; otherwise, 80 mph is the predominant speed. 

The northern section above the Hudson Highlands, where the Hudson River and the railroad are 

significantly straighter, allows for 90 mph operation of passenger trains. Leaving Croton-Harmon 

Station to the north, Amtrak intercity trains stop only at Poughkeepsie. 

Page 2-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The CSXT Hudson Subdivision south of Albany-Rensselaer begins at Poughkeepsie Station, MP 

73.5, and ends at Albany-Rensselaer Station, MP 142.1. This segment has the highest maximum 

authorized speeds (MAS) on the Empire Corridor, with speeds of up to 110 mph. The higher speeds 

are, in large measure, due to generally following the Hudson River, which is comparatively straight 

relative to segments to the south. The higher speeds also reflect extensive investment by New York 

State since the 1970s. 

Empire Corridor West (Albany to Buffalo)

Empire Corridor West extends 294 miles west (MPs 143 to 437) from approximately one mile 

north of Albany-Rensselaer Station to just east of the Buffalo-Exchange Street Station (refer to 

Exhibit 2-4). This section of track passes through the Mohawk Valley from the Capital District cities 

of Albany (Albany County) and Schenectady (Schenectady County), passing through the centralwestern New York cities of Utica (Oneida County), Syracuse (Onondaga County) and Rochester 

(Monroe County) in the Finger Lakes Region, and Buffalo (Erie County) on Lake Erie. Outside of 

these metropolitan areas, the railroad also passes through the more rural counties of Montgomery, 

Herkimer, Madison, Cayuga, Wayne, Monroe, and Genesee. 

This section of track is a two-track line that is the busiest freight track in the state, carrying one of 

the highest volumes on the CSXT system nationwide. This is the only railroad crossing 

upstate/western New York that can accommodate the maximum freight rail car weight (315,000 

pounds). The entire line west of Hoffmans (west of Schenectady) also has adequate clearance for 

double-stack intermodal trains. CSXT operates this as a high-volume railroad that is heavily used 

by 50 to 60 daily freight trains. The Albany to Hoffmans segment has very light freight traffic due to 

freight traffic diverting to Selkirk Yard to the south. The existing corridor includes a single-track 

segment between Albany and Schenectady, and speed restrictions/slow orders due to track 

conditions, such as the Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River, where speed is restricted 

to 20 mph. Current operating speeds of up to 79 miles per hour are permitted by the signal system 

for this shared use corridor, although actual speeds are considerably lower. Speeds are reduced to 

30 mph through the downtown Buffalo area. 

Amtrak operates a total of four daily roundtrips along the Empire Corridor West. Of these four 

trips, one daily service trip continues from Buffalo-Depew Station to Chicago (Lake Shore Limited). 

Amtrak operates three daily round trips to Niagara Falls (Empire Service), with one continuing on 

to Toronto (Maple Leaf Service). 

CSXT’s Hudson Subdivision extends west of Albany, a 27.6-mile-long segment beginning at 

Albany-Rensselaer Station, MP 142.1, and ending at Hoffmans, MP 169.7, near the border between 

Glenville and Amsterdam. The segment then joins CSXT’s Selkirk Subdivision (the CSXT Chicago 

Line). At this junction, CSXT’s major freight route between Chicago and the New York /New 

England area enters the Empire Corridor. 

Leaving Albany-Rensselaer Station, the Empire Corridor curves sharply west to cross the Hudson 

River on the Livingston Avenue drawbridge, MP 142.9. The line then skirts the northern edge of 

downtown Albany, and begins the steepest grade on the Empire Corridor, Albany Hill. The grade 

reaches a maximum of approximately 1.6 percent for about 1.7 miles, climbing from about 30 feet 

above sea level at the Hudson River to about 200 feet above sea level.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-5 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Exhibit 2-4—Empire Corridor West

The segment then passes through Colonie and approaches the outskirts of Schenectady. CSXT’s 

Carman Branch (freight only) begins at MP 156.5 (CP 156), which then diverges and crosses over 

the Empire Corridor on a bridge. 

Leaving Schenectady Station, the Empire Corridor curves west and crosses the Mohawk River on a 

725-foot-long double-track bridge. The line skirts the northern edge of Scotia and, at MP 168.3, 

passes under CSXT’s Selkirk Subdivision, which curves west after the bridge to parallel the Empire 

Corridor between the Mohawk River to the south and the Selkirk Division to the north. The Empire 

Corridor joins CSXT’s Selkirk Subdivision at CP 169 (Hoffmans). 

The CSXT Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions extend 127.1 miles from Hoffmans, MP 169.7, to the 

end of CSXT’s Mohawk Subdivision, west of Syracuse at MP 296.8. Empire Corridor West includes 

all of the Mohawk Subdivision and a short section of the westerly end of the Selkirk Subdivision. 

The Selkirk/Mohawk Subdivision dividing line is located at MP 175.5 (CP 175 in Amsterdam), 5.8 

miles west of Hoffmans. 

Page 2-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The eastern half of this segment closely follows the Mohawk River to Herkimer, where the river 

turns north to drain part of the Adirondack highlands, resulting in a number of curves that reduces 

maximum operating speed. West of Herkimer, the railroad follows the New York State Barge Canal. 

The landscape becomes less hilly approaching Utica and on to Syracuse. The Mohawk Subdivision 

ends, and the Rochester Subdivision begins, at MP 296.8, about five miles west of Syracuse Station. 

The CSXT Rochester Subdivision extends 133 miles from the boundary with the Mohawk 

Subdivisions, west of Syracuse, east to the Buffalo Terminal Subdivision at MP 429.8. The short, 

7.9-mile Buffalo Terminal Subdivision extends to MP 437.7, at which point the Niagara Subdivision 

diverges north.

Leaving Syracuse, the railroad alignment heads almost due west, following a broad, level valley 

generally drained by the Seneca River. This section has minimal curvature and supports a 79 mph 

maximum speed for passenger trains. Approaching Savannah, the alignment crosses the Erie Canal 

at MP 319.30, and the extensive Montezuma Marsh, a wide floodplain of the now narrow Seneca 

River. Due to continual differential settlement of the bridge structure at this site, all trains are 

limited to 40 mph.

Approaching Clyde at MP 328, the railroad encounters a region of hills. With the alignment 

designed to avoid some of the pronounced ridges, maximum passenger train speed is reduced to as 

low as 55 mph at Lock Berlin Curve,24 MP 332.6, to 334.0. Not until Walworth, at MP 361, is 

sustained 79 mph passenger train operation possible, for 7.5 miles to the eastern approaches to 

Rochester.

Similar to the segment through Syracuse, but shorter in overall length, the rail segment through 

Rochester features significant freight activity, complex track work, junctions, and reduced speeds 

(as low as 45 mph for passenger trains). West of Rochester at MP 372.2, the railroad encounters 

little topographical resistance to an almost straight alignment allowing 79 mph passenger train 

operation into Buffalo. Speeds are reduced to 30 mph through the downtown Buffalo area. 

Niagara Branch (Buffalo to Niagara Falls)

The Niagara Branch extends 27 miles west from MP 437.2 (CP 437), located just east of BuffaloExchange Street Station, and proceeds generally north to Niagara Falls (refer to Exhibit 2-5). This 

section of track passes through Erie and Niagara Counties. 

The Niagara Branch is primarily a passenger railroad; since there is a freight bypass route used by 

CSXT that provides modern clearances for freight service to Niagara Falls (refer to Section 2.5). 

Maximum passenger speeds over this single- and double-track (formerly all double-tracked), 

shared use corridor range from 40 to 60 mph. Impediments to freight movements include a tunnel 

with a vertical clearance slightly more than 16 feet, which is inadequate for a number of modern 

railcars, including double stack containers. The northernmost section of track, owned by Canadian 

National Railway, crosses into Niagara Falls, Canada at the Whirlpool Bridge. The Whirlpool Bridge 

accommodates the railroad on the upper level and carries highway traffic on the lower level. This

24/ Lock Berlin Curve is actually two curves; a reverse curve with some tangent between them. The initial curve outlines an almost a

ninety degree angle. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-7 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Exhibit 2-5—Niagara Branch

bridge is used only for the Maple Leaf service to Toronto, Canada operated by Amtrak and VIA rail 

(one daily roundtrip or two passenger trains a day), and future plans are to abandon freight use and 

maintain passenger rail service. 

CP 437 is the dividing point of CSXT’s Buffalo Terminal Subdivision, the Niagara Subdivision, the 

Lake Shore Subdivision and the Belt Subdivision. CSXT’s Belt Subdivision joins from the north and 

provides a high clearance bypass of downtown Buffalo. The Niagara Branch continues straight 

toward the shore of Lake Erie, curving to the right and continuing 1.9 miles to the Amtrak Exchange 

Page 2-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Street Station, which is very close to Buffalo’s main business district. 

The CSXT Niagara Subdivision extends 26.2 miles from a junction of several freight routes in 

Buffalo, proceeds generally north, through Tonawanda, North Tonawanda to Niagara Falls. Leaving 

Exchange Street, the Niagara Branch closely parallels Route I-190 along the Niagara River. The 

right-of-way (ROW) passes through a short tunnel under overhead roadways and is generally 

confined by many ramps, parallel roadways and I-190 itself. Six miles from its beginning, the track 

exits the confines of parallel highways at the I-190 and the Scajaquada Expressway (Route 198) 

interchange. At this location, the Niagara Branch passes junctions with the freight-only Belt 

Subdivision; most freight trains destined for Niagara Falls rejoin the Empire Corridor at this 

location. 

The Tuscarora Wye connects with the Niagara Branch 4.2 miles south of Niagara Falls. Northbound 

Amtrak trains terminating in Niagara Falls access the wye to pull forward, then reverse (using the 

other leg of the wye) to back into Niagara Falls Station. This allows the terminating Amtrak trains 

to be “turned” without the expense of a yard crew. Southbound Amtrak trains do not use the 

Tuscarora Wye.

2.2. Major Markets Served by the Empire Corridor

2.2.1. Characteristics of the Major Markets

The Empire Corridor runs through the population and economic spine of New York State, 

connecting all of its metropolitan areas. Eighty percent of New York State’s 19.4 million residents 

live within 30 miles of the Empire Corridor. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, New York’s six 

largest metropolitan areas (in order, New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, Syracuse, Albany) 

are located along this corridor. The Empire Corridor includes nine of the top twelve most populous 

cities (Schenectady, 9th largest city; Utica, 10th largest city; and Niagara Falls, 12th largest city). The 

convenience of efficient rail travel will contribute to the accessibility of these communities, 

enhancing their economic and cultural vitality and supporting local and regional economic 

development efforts. 

The total population of the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) defined around the eight major 

cities along the route, which extend out of state and into New Jersey and Pennsylvania, exceeds the 

state population. The following is a description of the eight MSAs along the route, served by nine 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). 

• New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA, served by the New York

Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the Orange County Transportation

Council (OCTC). NYMTC is the state-designated MPO for New York City, Long Island and the

lower Hudson Valley and is comprised of the following ten counties: New York City, Kings,

Bronx, Richmond, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester. Adjacent to the

northwest corner of the NYMTC region, OCTC is the MPO for Orange County.

• Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MSA, served by the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess

County Transportation Council (PDCTC). Bordering the northeast edge of the NYMTC region,

PDCTC is composed of Dutchess County.

• Kingston, NY MSA, served by the Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC). UCTC is the

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-9 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

designated MPO for Ulster County.

• Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA, served by the Capital District Transportation

Committee (CDTC). CDTC is the designated MPO for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy

metropolitan area and is responsible for Albany County, Rensselaer County, Schenectady

County, and Saratoga County.

• Utica-Rome, NY MSA, served by the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study

(HOCTS). HOCTS is responsible for the transportation planning in Herkimer and Oneida

Counties.

• Syracuse, NY MSA, served by the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council (SMTC).

SMTC is the state-designated MPO for Onondaga County and small portions of Madison and

Oswego Counties.

• Rochester, NY MSA, served by the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC). GTC is the MPO

responsible for the transportation planning of the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region which includes

the following nine counties: Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, Wayne,

Wyoming and Yates Counties.

• Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA, served by the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional

Transportation Council (GBNRTC). GBNRTC is the MPO for Niagara and Erie Counties.

The southern terminus of the Empire Corridor, the New York City metropolitan area, is the nation’s 

largest MSA with an estimated population of just under 19 million. New York City’s labor market 

totaled 4,722,352 in 2009, comprising 43.2 percent of New York State’s employment. In 2009, the 

gross metropolitan product of the New York metropolitan area (New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania MSA) was $1.210 trillion, larger than the 

combined gross domestic product of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and larger than all but one state 

(California).25 

The nine MPOs along the route account for 88 percent of the state’s total population and 

approximately 89 percent of the state’s total employment, and are expected to form the bulk of the 

high-speed rail ridership market. The population of the nine MPOs is forecast to increase to 

19,403,664 by 2035, surpassing the 2010 state population of 19,378,102. The employment for 

these MPOs is expected to increase 21 percent by 2035, to 11,847,283, thereby continuing to 

constitute roughly 89 percent of the state’s total 2035 projected employment of 13,286,923. Both 

population and employment are projected to increase through 2035 in Empire Corridor South. In 

Empire Corridor West, employment is expected to increase through 2035; a slight population 

decrease in many of the counties, however, is anticipated through 2035.26 

Exhibit 2-6 and Exhibit 2-7 present the existing and projected population and employment 

forecasts for the nine MPOs along the corridor compared to statistics for the entire state. 

25/ Economic Development Research Group, Inc. The Economic Impact of High Speed Rail and Cities and their Metropolitan Areas. 

Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors (undated), released June 2010 26/ U.S. Census, 2010 was the source for county population. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis was the source for 2009 employment, for

all MPOs except for the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council. Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. was used for 2035 county 

population and employment forecasts.

Page 2-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit 2-6—Existing and Projected Population for Metropolitan Areas along Empire Corridor

Exhibit 2-7—Existing and Projected Employment for Metropolitan Areas along Empire Corridor

The regional population and employment projections for the Empire Corridor indicate a strong 

population and employment base, and a correspondingly strong high-speed rail travel market. 

These projections do not account for major new infrastructure investments, such as improvements 

to high-speed rail service described in Chapter 3, which could potentially change the population 

and employment outlook. For example, according to a U.S. Conference of Mayor’s Report, which 

examined the impact of high-speed rail upon the City of Albany, the introduction of high-speed rail 

along the corridor can contribute substantially to economic growth by driving higher-density, 

mixed-use development at train stations; expanding visitor markets and generating additional 

spending; broadening regional labor markets; and supporting the growth of technology clusters.27

The Buffalo-Niagara region is an important gateway for international trade. According to the U.S. 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Buffalo-Niagara region was the third busiest international 

27/ Economic Development Research Group, Inc. The Economic Impact of High Speed Rail and Cities and their Metropolitan Areas. 

Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors (undated), released June 2010.

15,500,000

16,000,000

16,500,000

17,000,000

17,500,000

18,000,000

18,500,000

19,000,000

19,500,000

20,000,000

2010 Total Nine

MPOs

2035 Total Nine

MPOs

2010 New York

State

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

2009 Total Nine

MPOs

2035 Total Nine

MPOs

2009 New York

State

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

trade crossing by land in the nation in 2000, behind Texas and Michigan.28 Of the four international 

highway bridges located along the Niagara River, only two are used for commercial traffic, and only 

two of the three rail bridges across the river currently carry trains. According to the New York 

State Rail Plan (2009), the Buffalo and Niagara crossings into Canada (including highway freight) 

accounted for 60 percent of imports from Canada through the New York State border crossings 

(worth an estimated $37.9 billion) and 73.4 percent of U.S. exports (worth an estimated $32.5 

billion) in 2005. Of this, rail accounted for 16.6 percent (or $6.3 billion) of imports and 4.7 percent 

(or $1.5 billion) of exports through the Buffalo and Niagara crossings.29 A Greater Buffalo-Niagara 

Regional Transportation Council study of freight estimated that in 2006, $7.1 billion (or 5.1 million 

tons) of Canadian imports traveled via rail through the Port of Buffalo-Niagara Falls into the U.S., 

and $1.8 billion of goods were exported in the same year.30 Approximately one-fourth of the 

international trade with Canada occurs at the highway border crossings located along the Niagara 

River. In 2010, the Port of Buffalo-Niagara Falls had the third highest ranking for trade value of rail 

crossing ports into Canada in the U.S., accounting for $7.2 billion of imports and $2.8 billion of 

exports.31

2.2.2. Transportation Market Study

Cities along the Empire Corridor are serviced by four primary modes of transportation: auto, bus, 

air, and rail. Exhibit 2-8 shows the relationship of rail stations with bus and airport locations on the 

Empire Corridor. Section 2.2.2 presents an overview of the alternative transportation modes along 

the Empire Corridor. It also summarizes the findings of the ridership and revenue market forecast 

study conducted for this Tier 1 EIS. The study consisted of a comprehensive market and ridership 

demand assessment to evaluate potential 2035 ridership as a function of travel time by city pair, 

level of service, reliability, and projected fare structure. Appendix B presents the Ridership and 

Revenue Market Forecast for Empire Corridor High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Tier 1 EIS 

(Ridership and Revenue Forecast Study). 

Totaling all of the travel corridor origin and destination pairs accessible by train or alternative 

travel mode, there is a total single passenger, one way trip market of 219.3 million, as shown in 

Exhibit 2-9. Six cities along the corridor, New York City, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and 

Buffalo, constitute the 15 major travel markets for Empire Corridor high-speed rail service.32 As 

shown on Exhibit 2-10, nearly 20 percent of this ridership, approximately 36.8 million, is accounted 

for among 15 origin and destination city pairs (or major market pairs) present on the Empire 

Corridor accessible by train or an alternative travel mode. This 36.8 million person ridership is the 

total market in which rail competes and from which an improved Empire Corridor rail service could 

draw additional passengers.

28/ U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, North American Transborder Freight Data, “Top 104 Ports/Districts by Trade Value (U.S. 

Dollars) (Ranked by Total Trade) for U.S.-Canada Partner Trade by Rail: Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York.” Accessed October 12, 2011. 

29/ NYSDOT. New York State Rail Plan – Strategies for a New Age. 2009.

30/ Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study, Technical Memorandum No. 5: Economic Impact 

Analysis, Project No. 06 Freight. Prepared for the GBNRTC , Updated June 2010.

31/ U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, North American Transborder Freight Data, “Top 104 Ports/Districts by Trade Value (U.S. 

Dollars) (Ranked by Total Trade) for U.S.-Canada Partner Trade by Rail: Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York.” Accessed October 12, 2011. 

<http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_QuickSearch.html> 

32/ The 15 major travel markets are: New York City (NYC)-Albany; NYC-Utica, NYC-Syracuse, NYC-Rochester, NYC-Buffalo; AlbanyUtica; Albany-Syracuse; Albany-Rochester; Albany-Buffalo; Utica-Syracuse; Utica-Rochester; Utica-Buffalo; Syracuse-Rochester; 

Syracuse-Buffalo, Rochester-Buffalo.

Page 2-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit 2-8—Empire Corridor Station, Bus and Airport Locations

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Exhibit 2-9—Total Single Person Trips per Mode, Entire Corridor, 2009

Mode Trips 

(single person)

Share

(%)

Auto 210,977,488 96.2

Rail 1,298,706 0.6

Bus 4,593,637 2.1

Air 2,411,033 1.1

Total 219,280,865 100.0

 Source: Adirondack Trailways, Amtrak, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

 Greyhound, Megabus, Coast USA, NYSDOT, New York State Thruway Authority

Exhibit 2-10—Total Single Person Trips per Mode by Major Markets, 2009

Mode Single Trips Share

(%)

Auto 28,973,182 79

Rail 932,801 3

Bus 4,591,545 12

Air 2,337,800 6

Total 36,835,328 100

 Source: Adirondack Trailways, Amtrak, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

 Greyhound, Megabus, Coast USA, NYSDOT, New York State Thruway Authority

Automobile Ridership

The primary vehicular corridor running along the Empire Corridor can be broken down into three 

major segments, all of which are part of the New York State Thruway system: Interstate 87 north 

from New York City to Albany, approximately 160 miles; Interstate 90 west from Albany to Buffalo, 

approximately 293 miles; and Interstate 190 from Buffalo to Niagara Falls, approximately 21 miles.

As shown in Exhibit 2-9, more than 96 percent of total Empire Corridor area trips, or approximately 

211 million single person trips, are made by auto. For travel between the six major cities (the 15 

major market pairs) currently served by rail (or the Thruway exits most closely associated with 

Amtrak rail stations), the potential auto travel market, with which enhanced rail ridership services 

would compete, is approximately 29 million trips, or 79 percent of the total potential travel market 

between the major market cities in 2009.

Given the current modest levels of congestion on most parts of the corridor, auto-travel is the 

second fastest form of travel under existing conditions for most parts of the corridor, when 

compared to other modes. Other than air, which does not serve all markets on the corridor, auto 

has an advantage in travel time in the Empire Corridor versus current bus and rail service. Users 

are able to leave their origin and arrive at their destination without the transfer of modes required 

of public transit users who must select a secondary transport mode before arrival to and departure 

from origin and destination transit facilities.

Page 2-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Key characteristics associated with automobile selection as the preferred mode of travel are travel 

time and cost, with travel time a product of congestion and distance between origin and destination 

and an assumed average speed. Automobile travel is relatively inelastic; that is, automobile drivers 

do not typically switch to public transit without significant gains in travel time or reductions in cost.

Bus Service

Nonstop bus service exists between all the major cities along the corridor, and is provided by three 

major carriers: Adirondack Trailways (which also includes Pine Hill Trailways and New York 

Trailways), Greyhound, and Megabus. Adirondack Trailways is the predominant carrier, followed 

by Greyhound. 

Key characteristics associated with bus selection as the preferred mode of travel include frequency 

of service, fare price, and travel time.33 Bus travel is the second most popular mode of travel. In 

2009, there were nearly 4.6 million bus passenger trips in the Empire Corridor. Bus comprises 2 

percent of the travel market of all travel destinations along the entire corridor, and carries 12 

percent of all trips between major city pairs located along the corridor (refer to Exhibit 2-9 and 

Exhibit 2-10). Bus travel is more dominant than rail in terms of ridership, due to the combination 

of slightly lower fares, better travel time and more regular and reliable service. 

Regional express bus service has been a growing mode of travel throughout the Northeast. Current 

bus service providers in the Empire Corridor offer lower travel costs than those offered by previous 

bus services or competing Amtrak service. In recent years, bus carriers such as Greyhound and 

Megabus have focused on providing improved service tailored to business and student markets. 

This focus by bus carriers will challenge the ability of rail to capture this important “choice rider” 

category, which seeks not only value but quality as a substitute to automobile travel. Bus service is 

expected to continue to compete heavily with rail, and may capture a portion of rail’s share of the 

transit market in the corridor if no improvements to rail service are made. 

Air Service

The Empire Corridor is served by the following ten commercial service airports: Niagara Falls 

International, Buffalo-Niagara International, Greater Rochester International, Syracuse-Hancock 

International, Albany International, Stewart International, Westchester County, LaGuardia, John F. 

Kennedy (JFK) International, and Newark Liberty International in Newark, NJ. Direct air service is 

provided to Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo from the New York metropolitan area by US Airways 

(LaGuardia), Delta (JFK International), JetBlue (JFK International), and United (Newark Liberty 

International). All of these airlines, except for JetBlue, also provide direct service to Albany from 

New York.

Air travel is the third most frequented travel mode along the Empire Corridor, as well as the most 

expensive form of travel, compared to other modes. In 2009, air travel comprised approximately 1 

percent of all trips along the entire corridor (refer to Exhibit 2-9), for a total of approximately 2.4 

million trips, and approximately 6 percent of all trips among the six major market areas (refer to 

Exhibit 2-10), for a total of approximately 2.3 million trips. 

33/ While on-time performance is a key additional characteristic of bus service, these data were not available to access through the 

private carriers.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Comparative Major Market Travel Market 

Automobile travel is the primary mode of travel along the Empire Corridor, and rail ridership has 

the lowest market share of trips (0.6 percent) compared to other available modes of transportation. 

Of the total Empire Corridor major market rail trips in 2009, the most frequented origin and 

destination city was New York City, with approximately 423,000 trips (refer to Exhibit 2-11). By 

far, rail’s most frequently-traveled city pair in 2009 was New York City-Albany, with approximately 

320,000 trips. Capturing only 11 percent of this market, however, rail was the third most popular 

mode of travel between New York and Albany, exceeding only air. Travel time and cost do not 

make air travel competitive between New York and Albany. Similarly, rail was not competitive with 

air travel between New York City and Buffalo, capturing less than 3 percent of the travel market of 

this city pair, whereas air captured approximately 50 percent of the city pair’s travel market in 

2009. With 42 percent of the New York City-Buffalo market, bus detracts from rail, when cost, 

frequency, and reliability, and not time, are the travel priorities.

Exhibit 2-11—Empire Corridor Comparative Travel Market: New York City to Major Markets, 2009

Mode

Trip Destinations from NYC

Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

Auto 2,019,534 71 134,243 41 3,584 1 25,380 5 45,129 5

Rail 320,155 11 19,858 6 29,787 5 23,427 4 29,881 3

Bus 405,460 14 176,212 53 266,885 47 217,272 38 427,700 42

Air 99,443 4 * * 262,706 47 298,825 53 507,489 50

Total 2,844,592 100 330,313 100 562,962 100 564,904 100 1,010,199 100

Notes: 1. percentages are approximate and have been rounded. 2. *service not available

Sources: Amtrak, Google, Orbitz, Expedia, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways.

Findings of the Ridership and Revenue Forecast Study 

The Empire Corridor is overwhelmingly auto dominated and any small shift from the auto market 

(in terms of percentage) can bolster the growth of other travel modes. Analysis through 2035 

indicates growth in all modes of travel and in the total travel market. An assessment of existing 

transit services in the Empire Corridor indicates that there is an opportunity for high-speed rail, 

with an increased service frequency and improved OTP, to capture some of the travel market 

currently dominated by other modes. The following is a summary of findings of existing 

transportation modes along the Empire Corridor, and the ability of high-speed rail to capture future 

ridership. The Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study (Appendix B) provides detailed findings.

• Every transportation mode is at a disadvantage to auto for travel between Albany and New

York City, due to transit linkages, wait time factors, and the need to follow a predetermined

schedule. If schedules are convenient and service is reliable, however, rail can be seen as a

Page 2-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

competitive travel mode between Albany and New York City from both a cost and convenience 

standpoint.

• Intercity bus service is expected to continue to compete heavily with rail service. Enhanced

service and speed, along with a competitive price from rail, would likely reduce the dominance

of bus service on the Empire Corridor.

• An improved high-speed rail, with favorable fares and more competitive travel times and

schedule frequency, could be competitive with air travel. Air travel is by far the most expensive

form of travel in the Empire Corridor. With trips of shorter distances along the corridor, air

travel is inefficient with regard to cost and total travel time. Furthermore, out of the 15 city

pairs located within the Empire Corridor, air service is available for only 4 city pairs.

• The bulk of rail ridership would come from longer trips on the corridor; namely from New York

City to Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Currently, auto represents a small amount of the total

trips between New York City and the major markets on Empire Corridor West. Rail could draw

about half of its forecasted growth in ridership from the air market and approximately 25

percent from bus and auto trips.

In sum, the Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study indicates that an improved rail service, in 

terms of improved travel time, frequency of service, and reliability, could capture a significant 

portion of the air and bus travel markets and some portion of the auto travel market in the Empire 

Corridor, particularly between New York City and cities in Empire Corridor West. Chapter 3 

includes the ridership forecasts for the program alternatives. 

2.3. Other Existing Rail Routes

Section 2.3 presents an overview of the additional rail routes in the vicinity of and/or adjoining the 

Empire Corridor, to provide an understanding of the corridor’s linkages to the statewide and 

regional rail system. Exhibit 2-12 presents additional and adjoining rail corridors.

2.3.1. Additional Rail Routes

The CSXT River Line (also known historically as the West Shore Railroad route) is a single-track 

freight line that extends along the west side of the Hudson River from New Jersey to Selkirk Yard, 

south of Albany. The River Line is not a viable alternative to the Empire Corridor, because it is 

operating at capacity with significant freight volumes, does not provide access to AlbanyRensselaer Station and does not offer a direct connection to Manhattan. 

The Southern Tier Route that connects Hoboken, New Jersey with Binghamton, Elmira and Buffalo 

formerly provided a more direct passenger train route (404 miles) between the New York 

metropolitan area and Buffalo than the Empire Corridor, but did not serve population centers in 

Albany, Syracuse, and Rochester. Relatively frequent passenger train service (three round trips per 

day) existed until the 1960s, but did not continue after the beginning of Amtrak in 1971. New York 

State has funded investments in the Southern Tier freight service in recent decades and the track 

remains active, although owned by several different railroads. The Southern Tier Route is not a 

viable alternative to the Empire Corridor, because it bypasses most of the state population centers. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Exhibit 2-12—Additional and Adjoining Rail Corridors

2.3.2. Linkages to Adjoining Rail Corridors 

Rail corridors adjoining the Empire Corridor, as shown on Exhibit 2-12, include the following:

• Amtrak Northeast Corridor Acela Service, connecting at Penn Station; 

• Adirondack and Ethan Allen Express Services, operating north from Schenectady Station on the 

Page 2-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Canadian Pacific Railway and extending to Montreal and Vermont, respectively; 

• Lake Shore Limited, connecting Albany-Rensselaer Station and Boston on the east via the

former Boston and Albany line;

• Lake Shore Limited West, extending west of Buffalo to Cleveland and Chicago on the CSXT

Chicago Line; and

• Maple Leaf Service, operated by VIA Rail Canada (a Canadian government corporation), which

continues to Toronto via the Canadian National Railroad Lakeshore Line.

The Amtrak Northeast Corridor Acela Service and Northeast Regional Services operate from 

Penn Station northeast to Boston and south to Washington, D.C. along the most highly developed 

and heavily traveled passenger rail corridor in the country. The first high-speed rail line in the 

country, and one of the highest volume rail corridors in the world, the Northeast Corridor serves 

the densest populations in the Northeast and the nation. It crosses nine states and passes through 

Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark, New Haven, and Providence. The two highspeed rail corridors (Empire and Northeast Corridors) intersect at Penn Station, the busiest 

passenger station in the nation, with eight million intercity riders in fiscal year (FY) 2010. 

In addition to Amtrak passenger rail service between Boston and Washington, the Northeast 

Corridor accommodates commuter rail and freight rail uses, including Metro-North and the Long 

Island Railroad in New York State. As the first rail corridor to implement high-speed rail 

improvements nationwide and the last to be officially designated as a national high-speed rail 

corridor (March 2011), more funding and improvements are proposed for the Northeast Corridor 

as part of a comprehensive program to enhance high-speed rail by FRA, Amtrak, and the states 

traversed. 

The Canadian Pacific Railway (formerly Delaware and Hudson), which extends north of 

Schenectady Station to Rouses Point, New York and Montreal (one daily roundtrip), accommodates 

Amtrak Adirondack Service that originates from New York City along the Empire Corridor, as well 

as freight service. Amtrak Ethan Allen Express service also operates on Empire Corridor South, 

diverging at Whitehall, and continuing northeast to Rutland, Vermont (one daily roundtrip). As 

part of the I-87 Multi-Modal Corridor Study (2004) that analyzed high-speed rail service between 

New York City and Montreal, capital improvements to the existing freight and passenger line were 

identified.34 Outside the portion of the New York City to Montreal route that is shared with the 

Empire Corridor, this route is not designated by FRA as a high-speed rail corridor. New York State 

has funded a number of capital improvements on the line, with Canadian Pacific Railway funding an 

equal or additional amount. 

Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited service operates from Boston to Chicago, along the former Boston 

and Albany Line, to join with the Empire Corridor in Albany (one daily connecting service). It also 

continues west from Buffalo to Chicago (one daily connecting service) on the CSXT Chicago Line. 

The Boston to Albany route is part of the federally designated Northern New England high-speed 

rail corridor. The high-speed rail corridor designation includes a branch south from Springfield 

through Hartford to New Haven, Connecticut, and two other routes from Boston to Portland, Maine 

and to Montreal via White River Junction, Vermont. 

34/ Parsons-Clough Harbour. I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study: Existing Corridor Conditions and Opportunities. Prepared for NYSDOT, May 

2004. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-19

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

On the west, the proposed Ohio 3C high-speed rail corridor is part of the Chicago Hub Network, one 

of the designated high-speed rail corridors nationwide. The 3C corridor includes service from a 

hub in Cleveland southwest to Columbus and Cincinnati. The Ohio Rail Development Commission 

and the Ohio Department of Transportation undertook a feasibility study of high-speed rail routes 

with Cleveland as a hub. Although not part of the national high-speed rail designated corridor, 

potential high-speed rail routes identified from Cleveland would connect east to Buffalo. The 

Buffalo to Cleveland route and the connecting proposed high-speed rail route to Chicago follows the 

western path of the Amtrak Lake Shore Limited West service. The FRA awarded the 3C rail 

corridor a grant funded under the ARRA, but this grant was later withdrawn, when the State of Ohio 

elected not to advance or implement the high-speed rail improvements. 

The Maple Leaf Service, an extension of the Empire Service from New York City operated by 

Amtrak and VIA Rail Canada, continues from Niagara Falls northeast to Toronto (one daily 

roundtrip). The potential for high-speed rail service to Toronto and Quebec from Buffalo, as an 

extension of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls route, has been discussed by various agencies, including the 

Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council and the Canadian government. 

2.4. FRA Track Classification and Speed

The track safety standards of the FRA establish nine specific classes of track (Class 1 to Class 9), 

plus a category known as Excepted Track. The difference between each Class of Track is based on 

progressively more exacting standards for track structure, geometry, and inspection frequency. 

Railroads determine the Class of Track to which each segment of track belongs based on business 

and operational considerations. Once the designation is made, FRA holds railroads accountable for 

maintaining the track to the corresponding standards for that particular class. 

If through regular maintenance and inspection efforts a railroad discovers that a section of its track 

fails to meet the specified federal standard, the railroad is required to make appropriate repairs to 

maintain the Class of Track designation, or downgrade the track segment to a lower Class of Track 

to which the federal standard can be met. Each Class of Track has a corresponding MAS for both 

freight and passenger trains. The higher the Class of Track, the greater the allowable track speed; 

correspondingly, as the Class of Track increases, so do the required track safety standards (refer to 

Exhibit 2-13).

Amtrak maintains most of the Empire Connection to FRA Class 3. Metro-North maintains the 

segment to the north of the Hudson Line to FRA Class 4, except for a short section near the station 

and shop facilities at Croton-Harmon, which are maintained to FRA Class 3. The segment of the 

Hudson Line extending north of Croton-Harmon Station varies from FRA Class 3 to 6. The CSXT 

Hudson Subdivision south of Albany-Rensselaer Station varies from FRA Class 3 to 6. The CSXT 

Hudson Subdivision west of Albany-Rensselaer Station varies from FRA Class 1 to 6. 

CSXT maintains most of the main line track on the Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions to Class 4,

except passing through some of the major cities where it is Class 3. CSXT maintains most of the 

main line track on the CSXT Rochester and Buffalo Terminal Subdivisions to Class 4, except passing 

through some of the major cities where it is Class 3. CSXT maintains the Niagara Subdivision main

Page 2-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 2-13—Maximum Authorized Speed by Class of Track

Class of Track

Maximum Authorized 

Speed for Freight 

Trains (mph)

Maximum Authorized 

Speed for Passenger 

Trains (mph)1

Excepted Track2 10 N/A

Class 1 10 15

Class 2 25 30

Class 3 40 60

Class 4 60 80

Class 5 60 90

Class 6 60 110

Class 7 60 125

Class 8 60 160

Class 9 60 220 1/ Effective July 11, 2013, Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards Final Rule 

(March 13, 2013, 78 FR 16052)

2/ FRA regulations permit higher freight train speeds for this class of track. 

However, CSXT limits present and future freight train speeds on the corridor to 60 

mph. 

 Source: FRA Federal Track Safety Standards Fact Sheet

line tracks to FRA Class 3 condition. The controlled siding from CP 25 to Niagara Falls Station is 

FRA Class 2. Actual operating speeds are restricted in a number of locations due to curvatures, 

track conditions, and other restrictions. Also refer to Section 2.1.2 for a description of existing train 

speeds in the Empire Corridor.

Exhibit 2-14 displays the principal Empire Corridor operating segments, the length of the segment, 

the MAS range for passenger trains, and the average operating speed for passenger trains. The 

average operating speed reflects the shortest scheduled time for that segment, based on Amtrak 

timetables.35 Some trains have longer scheduled times than others for a given segment, based on 

anticipated operating congestion, construction outages, and historical performance considerations. 

The fastest scheduled segment of the corridor is from Rochester to Buffalo-Depew, where trains are 

scheduled to cover approximately 61 miles in just under an hour, yielding a scheduled operating 

speed average of 69 mph. The slowest scheduled segment is between Buffalo-Depew and BuffaloExchange Street, where the scheduled operating speed average is 34 mph. 

Exhibit 2-15 summarizes the current Empire Corridor MAS for passenger trains by segment and 

speed range. It shows that a relatively small percentage of the overall route (6.7 percent) is capable 

of supporting 100 or 110 mph passenger train speeds. These locations are limited to portions of 

Empire Corridor South and Empire Corridor West between Poughkeepsie and Hoffmans. About 20 

percent of the corridor is capable of supporting passenger train speeds of 90 mph or greater, and 

66 percent of the corridor is capable of supporting passenger train speeds of 75 mph or greater. 

Only 11 percent of the Empire Corridor has a MAS of less than 60 mph for passenger trains.

35/ The average operating speed is based on the best scheduled times in April 18 2011 Amtrak Timetable in either direction, and does 

not include Albany-Rensselaer dwell

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-21

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Exhibit 2-14—Empire Corridor Maximum Authorized Speed Ranges and Average Operating 

Speeds

Page 2-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 2-15—Empire Corridor Maximum Authorized Speed by Segment and Speed Range

From To Operated

By Miles

Miles at Maximum Authorized Speed Average

Operating

Speed

mph <60 60-70 75-85 90-95

100-

110

(miles) (miles) (miles) (miles) (miles)

Penn Station

Spuyten 

Duyvil

(CP 12)

Amtrak 10.8 2.9 7.9 -- -- -- 41

Spuyten 

Duyvil

(CP 12)

CrotonHarmon

(CP 34)

MetroNorth 21.7 4.6 6.5 10.6 -- -- 52

CrotonHarmon 

(CP 34)

Poughkeepsie

(CP 75)

MetroNorth 42.4 6.1 9.4 11.5 15.4 -- 65

Poughkeepsie 

(CP 75)

AlbanyRensselaer Amtrak 66.3 0.3 -- 8.3 41 16.7 66

AlbanyRensselaer Schenectady Amtrak 17.7 5.1 -- 1.7 3.6 7.3 48

Schenectady Hoffmans Amtrak 9.7 0.5 1 -- 1.3 6.9 53

Hoffmans Utica CSXT 68 2.4 39.8 25.8 -- -- 63

Utica Syracuse CSXT 53.9 1.8 6 46.1 -- -- 49

Syracuse Rochester CSXT 79.6 14.3 18.9 46.4 -- -- 63

Rochester Buffalo Depew CSXT 60.7 1.2 -- 59.5 -- -- 69

Buffalo Depew Buffalo

Exchange St CSXT 7.9 2.4 1.8 3.7 -- -- 34

Buffalo 

Exchange St Niagara Falls CSXT 24.6 7.1 17.5 -- -- -- 39

Total Miles 463.3 48.7 108.8 213.6 61.3 30.9

Percentage of Total 11% 23% 46% 13% 7%

2.5. Freight Operations

Empire Corridor West (from Hoffmans) carries 50 to 60 daily freight trains (refer to Exhibit 2-16), 

one of the highest volumes on the entire CSXT system. CSXT operates upwards of 80 local freight 

trains per week and close to 450 through freight trains per week along this segment.36 

This section of track is the only railroad crossing in upstate/western New York that can 

accommodate the maximum freight rail car weight (315,000 pounds). There is a wide range of 

freight trains, with the single largest category being intermodal trains that carry double-stack 

containers to and from East Coast ports. Some intermodal trains also carry “piggyback” highway 

trailers on flat cars. Other train types include enclosed automobile “racks” from final assembly 

plants; coal trains for electric generating plants; garbage trains from New York City and other 

locations; and general merchandise trains carrying lumber, chemicals, grain, fertilizer, plastics, 

propane, and other commodities. 

The busiest segment of the CSXT freight operations (Buffalo-Rochester) handled about 85 million 

36/ LTK Engineering Services. Rail Network Operations Simulation Results. Prepared for NYSDOT. June 2012.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-23

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

gross tons (mgt) of freight per year in 1997, increasing to about 110 mgt in 2007.37 This reflects an 

annual growth of about 2.5 percent. CSXT’s Niagara Branch handles approximately 10 to 20 mgt of 

freight per year. Although corridor-specific figures are not available, the recent recession severely 

affected freight traffic. For the CSXT system as a whole, volume tonnage declined by about 17 

percent from 2008 to 2009, rebounding by about 9 percent from 2009 to 2010.

Exhibit 2-16—Weekday Train Frequencies on Empire Corridor

Service

Empire Corridor South

South of Albany-Rensselaer Empire Corridor West

Outbound (to West of Albany-Rensselaer

Albany)

Inbound (to New 

York City)

Passenger Rail (Amtrak)

To Albany From Albany From Albany To Albany

13 13 4 (6 from 

Schenectady)

4 (6 to 

Schenectady)

Commuter (Metro-North)

To Poughkeepsie From 

Poughkeepsie

28 29 N/A

Terminating at 

Croton-Harmon

Originating at 

Croton-Harmon 

43 38

Total Outbound 

78

Total Inbound

76

Freight (CSXT) 4 50 – 60 (west of Hoffmans)

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Albany, and Buffalo, NRPC Form W8 , 4/18/2011; Metro-North Railroad 

Hudson Line Timetable, effective October 14 through January 3, 2013. 

Most freight trains on the Empire Corridor continue west from Buffalo on the CSXT Lake Shore 

Subdivision/Chicago Line that passes along the south shore of Lake Erie. CSXT interchanges freight 

with Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway in the Buffalo area. Local CSXT 

freight trains operate to Niagara Falls, serving industries and power plants in that area. Although 

the CSXT and Canadian National freight networks connect via the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara Falls, 

freight trains do not regularly use this routing. On the east, CSXT freight trains diverge from the 

Empire Corridor at Hoffmans, operating to the large classification (sorting) yard at Selkirk, south of 

Albany. From Selkirk Yard, the majority of the freight trains operate south via the CSXT River Line 

(former West Shore Railroad) to New Jersey, while others operate east to connect with the Boston 

& Albany Line to Springfield, Worcester, and Boston, Massachusetts. A small number of freight 

trains cross the Hudson River, then access Empire Corridor South at Stuyvesant to travel to 

Poughkeepsie and the New York City area, where connections are made with the Long Island rail 

freight network. 

The CSXT Buffalo Terminal area, located at the western end of the Empire Corridor, is a major hub 

for international rail movements and is used by all four major Class I railroads in the eastern U.S. 

(CSXT, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific), each with its respective 

terminal facilities, classification yards, interchange, and mainline tracks. The Empire Corridor only 

37/ Conrail Track Chart, CSXT System Tonnage Chart

Page 2-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

accommodates one of these Class I railroads (CSXT), although the Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern 

Railroad holds trackage rights to operate between Utica and Rome on CSXT tracks. 

CSXT has a freight bypass around Rochester to the south, the 23.5-mile-long single track West 

Shore Subdivision. This bidirectionally-signaled line diverges east of Rochester at MP 359.2 and 

rejoins the Rochester Subdivision at MP 382.6, west of Rochester. Freight trains not needing to 

stop at Rochester, such as intermodal, automotive, unit coal, and grain trains, use this slightly 

shorter, uncongested route on an as-needed basis. 

The CSXT River Line, which parallels the Empire Corridor, is used as a freight bypass of 

Schenectady and Albany and points south. The River Line, a single-track freight line, is used as 

CSXT’s principle intermodal route, along with the Chicago Line (Empire Corridor West), between 

the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and Chicago. The “Castleton Cut-off” route that 

connects the River Line at Selkirk Yard with the Empire Corridor at Stuyvesant and the Boston & 

Albany Line is the closest freight rail crossing of the Hudson River to New York City, and, at 125 

miles north of the city, the closest connection to points west of the river. 

Selkirk Yard is the focal point for rail freight service through the Albany-Schenectady area, as well 

as the operational control point for all CSXT operations in the corridor. Section 2.8.3 provides 

additional descriptions of other service yards.

Empire Corridor South has a capability of accommodating the second highest rail car weight limit 

class (286,000 pounds) for freight. CSXT freight traffic on Empire Corridor South is considerably 

lighter than freight traffic west of Hoffmans. Freight service on the Hudson Line consists of through 

freight limited to a nighttime window and several locals (four) per day. Freight service on the 

Hudson Line is constrained by the high volume of Metro-North commuter rail traffic and 

substandard clearances at bridges over the rail line. Furthermore, as previously noted, much of the 

freight traffic is routed down CSXT’s West Shore Line to northern New Jersey, rather than into New 

York City, where congestion and a lack of modern freight rail yards hamper deliveries (with the 

exception of shippers with their own sidings). 

2.6. Commuter Rail Operations

The Empire Corridor South is heavily used for commuter rail (refer to Exhibit 2-16). South of 

Poughkeepsie Station, Metro-North operates Hudson Line commuter service into Grand Central 

Terminal. 

Metro-North has a system-wide on-time performance of 97.5 percent and a growing ridership base. 

Hudson Line ridership increased an average of 2.3 percent a year, which compares to an average 

increase of Metro-North ridership system-wide of 1.8 percent a year.38 Over the last 15 years, 

Hudson Line commuter rail ridership has increased by roughly 4 million, to 15.7 million annually in 

2010. Ridership increased 4 percent to 5 percent annually between 2006 and 2008, dropped 4 

percent during 2009, and increased 1 percent in 2010. 

Metro-North Hudson Line commuter rail service consists of 78 weekday revenue trains originating 

from and 76 terminating at Grand Central Terminal (GCT), for a total of 154 trips to and from GCT 

38/ Anders, Marjorie, MTA, “RE: New York State High Speed Rail Project - Metro-North Hudson Line Ridership Information,” email/personal communication with Kevin Horgan, HNTB Corporation, October 28, 2011. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-25

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

each weekday. On weekends, Metro-North operates 50 trips terminating at GCT (with 2 additional 

trips on Saturdays) and 51 trips originating from GCT, for a total of 101 to 103 trips to and from 

GCT each day. For weekday and weekend service, the frequency of service at each of the stops 

along the Hudson Line varies by location. Of the 78 outbound and 76 inbound weekday trains, 28 

(outbound) and 29 (inbound) trains serve Poughkeepsie. Most of these trains are express, or 

limited express trains, with other trains each way operating as local shuttle trains to CrotonHarmon only. Two late night/early morning trains operate as shuttle trains making all stops. On 

the weekends, service totals 20 trips originating from Poughkeepsie (with an additional two trips 

on Saturdays) to 21 trips terminating at Poughkeepsie, for a total of 41 to 43 trips to and from 

Poughkeepsie. On weekends, there are an additional 30 round trips that originate and terminate in 

Croton-Harmon. On the weekends, shuttle operations, making almost all stops, operate on the late 

night trains. 

2.7. Intercity Passenger Rail Operations

This section describes reliability (on-time-performance (“OTP”)), travel times, schedule frequency, 

and ridership for Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail service on the Empire Corridor. 

2.7.1. Reliability

Reliability, or OTP, is the consistency of service in terms of both travel times and adherence to 

published schedules. Inadequate reliability adds to total travel time because passengers are forced 

to select earlier departure times to allow sufficient time for potential delays. Thus, highly 

unreliable service is often avoided by schedule-driven business travelers. 

With its poor OTP and long travel times, Empire Corridor passenger rail service is currently an 

unreliable travel option, which renders the competitively-priced service ineffective in terms of 

serving market needs, and results in a negative impact on ridership. Amtrak has determined that a 

reasonable OTP would be approximately 90 percent, but in 2009-2010 it was just 77.9 percent for 

trains operating between Penn Station and Albany-Rensselaer and 61.7 percent for trains operating 

between Penn Station and Niagara Falls. The 2008 OTP for trains operating between AlbanyRensselaer and Niagara Falls was 47.6 percent.39 These statistics are based on a lateness threshold 

of 10 minutes. A train that is 10 minutes late is reported the same as a train that is three hours late, 

yet the latter has a much more severe impact because it is likely to result in passengers selecting 

other modes for future travel. 

Amtrak routinely collects information on the causes of train delays, which are frequently due to 

host/owner railroad issues. Exhibit 2-17 summarizes the common causes of delays on each 

corridor segment. Overall, these problems in the Empire Corridor resulted in more than 161,000 

minutes of annual delay, according to analysis of Amtrak data provided to NYSDOT.40

Of the 6,805 Empire Corridor trains operating between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, over 10 

percent of trains were more than 30 minutes late. Over 4 percent of trains were more than an hour 

late and over 1 percent of trains were more than two hours late. The average train trip on the 

39/ LTK Engineering Services. Rail Network Operations Simulation Results. Prepared for NYSDOT. June 2012.

40/ Amtrak Conductor Delay Report, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010.

Page 2-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 2-17—2009-2010 Empire Corridor Delays

Source: Amtrak Conductor Delay Reports, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010

Empire Corridor experienced 35 minutes of delay en route. While some trips recover some of the 

delay en route, the vast majority do not, leading to poor OTP results. 

2.7.2. Travel Times

Travel time is a component of a total trip between origin and destination and is often another 

determining factor in mode choice. A number of factors affect total trip time, including distance, 

wait time for a train, OTP and average delay, as well as access and egress. Exhibit 2-18 presents the 

average one-way scheduled rail travel times in the Empire Corridor and the total one-way rail 

travel times in the Empire Corridor between major market pairs.

Rail travel from New York City to Albany-Rensselaer Station has a scheduled run time of 2 hours 30 

minutes (2:30). The total trip time, which includes access time, wait time, haul time, and egress 

time, is estimated to be 3 hours 10 minutes (3:10). When considering total travel times, rail trip 

times are competitive with automobile, bus, and air travel between New York City and Albany.

Rail trip times are considerably slower in the Penn Station to Niagara Falls segment; as a result, rail 

travel is not competitive with other travel modes. Passenger rail travel time from New York City to 

Buffalo-Exchange Street is 8 hours and 18 minutes (8:18), with a total trip time (access/egress, 

wait, and haul time) of approximately 9:50. The long trip-time is a contributing factor in 

discouraging the use of the rail corridor to travel between key cities such as Buffalo and New York 

City. 

Corridor Segment Delay 

Source

% of Delay 

Cause

Common Causes

NYC -

Poughkeepsie

MetroNorth 75 Commuter train interference

Amtrak 23 Passenger train interference (Penn Station), 

passenger loading issues

Other 2 Weather

PoughkeepsieAlbany-Rensselaer

CSXT 61 Slow orders, communications and signals 

issues, freight train interference

MetroNorth 11 Poughkeepsie congestion

Amtrak 26 Passenger train interference, passenger train 

loading issues, crew-related delays

Other 2 Weather

Albany-Rensselaer 

– Niagara Falls

CSXT 73 Freight train interference, slow orders, work 

zones

Amtrak 25 Passenger loading issues, crew related delays

Other 2 Weather, Customs and Immigration

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-27

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Exhibit 2-18—2010 Total and 2011 Average Scheduled Empire Corridor One-Way Travel Times 

Trip Origins

Trip Destinations

(hours: minutes)

NYC Albany Schenectady Utica Syracuse Rochester

Buffalo 

Exchange 

Street

Niagara Falls

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

2010

Tot

2011 

Sche

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

2010

Total

2011 

Sche

NYC - - 3:46 2:29 - 3:07 5:55 4:26 7:09 5:34 8:29 6:56 10:01 8:18 - 9:27

Albany 3:37 2:30 - - - 0:37 2:49 1:54 4:03 3:03 5:23 4:24 6:55 5:47 - 6:56

Schenectady - 3:25 - 0:38 - - - 1:19 - 2:28 - 3:49 - 5:12 - 6:21

Utica 5:35 4:43 2:38 1:58 - 1:21 - - 1:54 1:08 3:14 2:30 4:46 3:52 - 5:01

Syracuse 6:41 5:48 3:44 3:03 - 2:25 1:46 1:04 - - 2:00 1:21 3:32 2:44 - 3:53

Rochester 8:09 7:19 5:12 4:34 - 3:57 3:14 2:36 2:08 1:31 - - 2:12 1:22 - 2:31

Buffalo 

Exchange 

Street

9:28 8:35 6:31 5:50 - 5:13 4:33 3:52 3:27 2:47 1:59 1:16 - - - 1:09

Niagara 

Falls - 9:13 - 6:28 - 5:51 - 4:30 - 3:25 - 1:54 - 0:38 - -

Note: Average of scheduled travel times of trains operating Monday through Friday. Total travel time includes delay.

Source: Average Scheduled Travel Times=Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Albany, and Buffalo, NRPC Form W8 , 4/18/2011

Total travel time=Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Niagara Falls, and Toronto NRPC Form W8 6/21/2010 and estimates of en-route 

delays plus access/egress

A statistical analysis of May 2008 Empire Corridor operations west of Albany-Rensselaer indicates 

that the average actual running time was 58 minutes longer than the scheduled running time, with 

some trains requiring two hours more than the scheduled running time (refer to Appendix D). The 

current scheduled run times between Albany-Rensselaer and Niagara Falls41 range from 6:10 to 

6:50, reflecting non-competitive average speeds (46 - 52 mph) and significant additional scheduled 

time to account for rail congestion on the corridor. For example, standard rail industry practice on 

primarily double-track mainlines calls for a 6 percent schedule margin to provide for reliable 

service, whereas the trains on the Empire Corridor have excessive scheduled margins ranging from 

14 percent to 24 percent.

2.7.3. Schedule Frequency

Schedule frequency represents the range and uniformity of departure times offered in train 

schedules, and it is a critical determinant of mode utilization. With automobile trips essentially 

offering unlimited frequency, an attractive rail service must offer a range of departure times 

throughout the day to provide passengers with multiple choices. It is preferable that rail services 

operate on “clockface” schedules which offer near-uniform intervals between departures, such as at 

10 minutes after each hour. Passengers find these clockface schedules easier to remember and, 

therefore, particularly attractive. 

Empire Corridor Service between New York and Albany-Rensselaer consists of thirteen (13) daily 

weekday roundtrips (with 11 weekend roundtrips), while service between Albany-Rensselaer and 

Buffalo-Depew has a frequency of just four (4) roundtrips per day (refer to Exhibit 2-16). Of the 

41/ April 18,2011 Amtrak public timetable

Page 2-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

four daily trains, three of the westbound trains provide service to Niagara Falls, and three of the 

four eastbound trains provide service from Niagara Falls.

Overall, service is modest, and particularly for Empire Corridor West. The lack of service directly 

limits the market potential for rail relative to the other transportation modes serving this corridor. 

Use of rail service between New York City and Buffalo, as well as other cities along Empire Corridor 

West, is predominantly limited to leisure travel or multi-day business trips. 

Despite rail’s competitive travel time from New York City to Albany, the first daily train does not 

arrive in Albany until 9:45 a.m., slightly later than ideal for business travelers. A one-way trip 

between Albany-Rensselaer Station and Buffalo has a scheduled travel time of approximately five 

hours or greater. As shown in Exhibit 2-19 and Exhibit 2-20, it is not possible to travel by 

passenger train from Albany-Rensselaer to Buffalo for a day trip. The earliest daily westbound 

train arriving in Buffalo-Depew Station from Albany-Rensselaer arrives at 3:10 p.m., while the latest 

daily eastbound train departing from Buffalo (Exchange Street) departs at 1:13 p.m. The service 

also does not serve peak direction trips between cities, as there are no scheduled eastbound trains 

between Buffalo and Albany-Rensselaer that arrive in Albany-Rensselaer before 9 a.m. The limited 

service between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo is insufficient to attract travelers who have other 

transportation options, such as auto, bus or air, that provide them with greater flexibility in 

scheduling their travel. 

Exhibit 2-19—2011 Daily Westbound Train Schedule: Albany-Rensselaer to Buffalo-Depew

Exhibit 2-20—2011 Daily Eastbound Train Schedule: Buffalo-Depew to Albany-Rensselaer

Service Trains Departure

Albany-Rensselaer, NY

Arrival

Buffalo-Depew, NY

Scheduled Trip Time

(hours: minutes)

63 Maple Leaf 10:03 a.m. 3:10 p.m. 5 :07

281 Empire Service 1:00 p.m. 6:27 p.m. 5:27

283 Empire Service 3:55 p.m. 9:22 p.m. 5:27

49 Lake Shore Limited 7:05 p.m. 11:59 p.m. 4:54

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Albany, and Buffalo, NRPC Form W8 , 4/18/2011

Service Trains Departure

Buffalo-Depew, NY

Arrival

Albany-Rensselaer, NY

Scheduled Trip Time

(hours: minutes)

280 Empire Service 4:34 a.m. 9:50 a.m. 5:16

284 Empire Service 7:59 a.m. 1:55 p.m. 5:56

48 Lake Shore Limited 9:08 a.m. 2:50 p.m. 5:42

64 Maple Leaf 1:13 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 5:47

Notes: Train 280 does not operate on Sunday, and Train 284 does not operate on Saturday, but other trains offer service at or around 

the same times.

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Albany, and Buffalo, NRPC Form W8 , 4/18/2011

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

2.7.4. Ridership

Rail ridership exceeded 1.26 million in 2000, but decreased to 1.04 million riders in 2002. Part of

this decline can be attributed to the introduction of JetBlue air service from Buffalo in 2001. Since 

that time, however, ridership has increased from 1.08 million riders in 2003, to 1.14 million riders 

in 2004, up to 1.3 million riders in 2009, and 1.4 million riders in 2011. Most significantly, intercity 

passenger rail ridership increased 23 percent between Albany-Rensselaer and Niagara Falls from 

2007 to 2008, and increased 50 percent from 2003 to 2008.42

Exhibit 2-21 presents a summary of rail ridership among the 15 major market pairs in 2009. Rail 

ridership data were obtained by analyzing the origin-destination data obtained from Amtrak. The 

data were sorted by station pairs, which provided the ridership between the discreet station pairs 

and the total boardings at each station. 

The greatest number of boardings, 45 percent, involved travel to and from New York City. Albany 

was the second most popular origin/destination city, with 37 percent of the total market share. 

The major market share of any one city then declined substantially, with the Buffalo market 

comprising 6 percent, the next largest major market share. The most frequent market pair, the New 

York City-Albany market, constituted 34 percent of the entire 2009 rail market. Although the New 

York City-Buffalo market had the second greatest number of boardings, it totaled only 3 percent of 

the entire Empire Corridor rail market, as did the New York City to Syracuse market. Along Empire 

Corridor West, the Albany-Buffalo market comprised only 1 percent of the rail market.

Exhibit 2-21—2009 Major Market to Market Boardings

Trip Origins Trips Destinations

NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC - 320,155 19,858 29,787 23,427 29,881 423,108

Albany 320,155 - 2,082 7,013 8,224 11,133 348,607

Utica 19,858 2,082 - 819 1,421 2,480 26,659

Syracuse 29,787 7,013 819 - 1,794 6,466 45,878

Rochester 23,427 8,224 1,421 1,794 - 1,862 36,728

Buffalo 29,881 11,133 2,480 6,466 1,862 - 51,821

Total 423,108 348,607 26,659 45,878 36,728 51,821 932,801

Source: Amtrak

While trip time and cost are perhaps the most important characteristics when evaluating ridership 

levels among travel modes, frequency of service and OTP are also critical determinants. For 

example, service between city pairs along Empire Corridor West have similar distances and travel 

times, and competitive fares among rail, bus and auto. Between Syracuse and Rochester, where air 

42/ NYSDOT. New York State Rail Plan. 2009.

Page 2-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

travel is not available, rail service has a superior travel time and cost as compared to bus service. 

Rail represents a fraction of travel between Rochester and Syracuse, however (approximately 1,800 

rail trips versus more than 92,000 bus trips in 2009). Service frequency and OTP are the major 

determinants for this city pair; rail service offers only 4 roundtrips between the two cities and an 

OTP of less than 60 percent, whereas bus service offers 24 trips between Syracuse and Rochester 

with an approximate 85 percent OTP. 

Currently, rail does not capture a significant share of any city pair market along Empire Corridor 

West due to its significantly less service and its poor OTP. Poor OTP effectively adds to travel time 

and eliminates business travel, as travelers cannot take a chance on the mode of travel not arriving 

at their destination around their scheduled time. Empire Corridor West has historically low OTP 

and very extended average delay times. 

2.8. Infrastructure

This section describes the Empire Corridor infrastructure, including track and signals, stations and 

parking, rail yards and maintenance facilities, bridges and tunnels, grade crossings, and rolling 

stock. Rolling stock consists of the vehicles that move on the railroad, including locomotives and 

coaches. 

2.8.1. Track and Signals

This section describes the existing configuration of the tracks and the type of signal systems along 

the Empire Corridor. The type of signal system has implications for maximum speed. Section 2.4

provides a description of Maximum Authorized Speeds (MASs), and Exhibit 2-14 and Exhibit 2-15

present MASs and average operating speeds throughout the corridor. 

Empire Corridor South

Penn Station and the Empire Connection: At Penn Station, Tracks 5–9 connect both to Amtrak’s 

Sunnyside Yard and the Penn Station support facility to the east, and to the Empire Connection to 

the west. The first segment of the Empire Connection from Penn Station and curving under the 

West Side Yard is single track to a point just north of 39th Street, about 0.75 miles from Penn 

Station. At that location, Empire Interlocking defines the track junction where double track begins 

to the north. Continuing along the west side of Manhattan, most of the alignment is located within a 

tunnel, with only a few short openings up to just north of 123rd Street where the tunnel ends, 5 

miles from Penn Station (refer to Tunnel description in Section 2.8.4). For a few miles in the Bronx 

there are only two or three tracks on the Metro-North Hudson Line, with a notable bottleneck of 

double track at the Marble Hill Cutoff between CP 10 and CP11 on the line from Grand Central 

Terminal. 

Double track ends 9.6 miles from Penn Station at Inwood Interlocking, a short distance south of the 

swing span rail bridge over the Harlem Ship Canal at Spuyten Duyvil Bridge, 10 miles from Penn 

Station. The single track continues north, as it enters the Metro-North Hudson Line right-of-way at 

10.2 miles from Penn Station. The single-track Empire Connection parallels the three-track MetroNorth Hudson Line a short distance north to the interlocking designated as CP12, approximately 

10.8 miles from Penn Station. In this 10.8 mile segment, there are 8.9 miles of double track and 1.9 

miles of single track. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-31

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets 

Trackage at Penn Station is within interlocking limits, with all trains limited to a maximum speed of 

15 mph. The track geometry is the limiting factor for speed on this segment of railroad. All other 

tracks up to CP 12 on the Hudson Line are equipped with Rule 261 bidirectional wayside signaling 

with cab signaling. 

Rule 261 is a reference to an operating rule that denotes that the tracks are signaled for travel in 

both directions on all tracks. Cab signaling consists of a signal system within the engine control 

compartment that indicates track occupancy and condition. This allows trains to operate on all 

tracks in both directions with a constant cab signal indication in the locomotive cab that repeats the 

indication of the signals on the wayside. Cab signaling allows speeds in excess of 79 mph per FRA 

regulation. 

Hudson Line South: Hudson Line South extends from CP12 to a point about 22 miles to the north 

at Croton-Harmon Station. At the southern end of this segment, Metro-North has three tracks. 

Amtrak’s Empire Connection from Penn Station, single track at this location, parallels these three 

tracks for about one half mile north, merging with the Metro-North tracks at CP12. CP12 is a 

complex interlocking consisting of both left and right hand crossovers, allowing trains to move from 

one track to the other. It is the junction of the Amtrak Empire Connection and the beginning of four 

tracks from CP12 north to the end of this segment at Croton-Harmon Station.

South of the Croton-Harmon Station, the Hudson Line is electrified using a third rail system and 

serves suburban stations located more closely together. Most of the electrified zone has four tracks 

(though one of the tracks is not electrified in much of this segment), supporting bidirectional 

express and local operation. In general, the two outside tracks accommodate local service to the 

stations along the route, while the center tracks serve as express tracks that do not have station 

platforms except at the major stations. Three of the four main line tracks have under running 

contact rails (3rd rail). In some locations there is a fifth track used only for freight service to 

facilitate access to on-line freight consignees and shippers. These tracks, generally parallel to the 

main line tracks, allow local freight trains to shift freight cars in and out of customer’s siding clear 

of the main tracks.

The Croton-Harmon Station divides the two segments of the Metro-North Hudson Line, with 

electrification and high density commuter train operation south of Croton-Harmon to GCT. 

Hudson Line North: North of Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie, the line is mostly double-tracked, 

with a few three-track areas. Most diesel trains north of Croton-Harmon operate through to GCT, 

operating express over the electrified portion of the line. There is a mostly freight-only third track 

between Croton-Harmon Station and Peekskill. There is also a 2.5-mile section of triple track 

between MP 58.5 (CP 58), just south of Beacon to MP 61.2 (CP 61), that is used as a turnback 

location for some northbound Metro-North trains. At Poughkeepsie Station, there are five tracks, 

but only three tracks have direct platform access and are normally used in revenue service.

The signal system in both the Hudson Line South and the Hudson Line North is a centralized traffic 

control system with wayside signals located only at interlockings (track junctions) and cab 

signaling located throughout. Metro-North uses different operating rules and signal indications 

than do Amtrak and CSXT on the bounding segments to the south and north. Empire Corridor train 

engineers must be qualified in both the Metro-North operating rules and the Northeast Operating 

Rules Advisory Committee (NORAC) rules used by Amtrak and CSX. Speeds over 79 mph are not 

possible in this segment due generally to curvature (refer to Section 2.4).

Page 2-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS 

CSXT Hudson Subdivision South of Albany: This entire segment from Poughkeepsie to AlbanyRensselaer is double track for passenger operations. In addition to the endpoint passenger stations, 

there are intermediate stations at Rhinecliff and Hudson. There are short segments of additional 

track used for freight service. The signal system is a centralized traffic control system with wayside 

and cab signaling. Speeds over 79 mph are possible on most of this segment. 

Empire Corridor West 

CSXT Hudson Subdivision West of Albany-Rensselaer to Hoffmans: The segment is primarily 

single track, with the exception of two locations: approximately 1.7 miles of double track from 

Albany-Rensselaer Station through the Livingston Avenue Bridge, to a point on the west side of the 

Hudson River (with only the single main track normally used by Amtrak trains); and approximately 

3.3 miles of double track through Schenectady (CP156 to CP159). NYSDOT currently is pursuing 

restoration of a second main track from Albany-Rensselaer to Schenectady (incorporating the 

CP156 to CP159 double track). This segment is equipped with Rule 261 signaling with cab 

signaling. 

CSXT Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions, Hoffmans to Syracuse: This segment is double track 

and signaled for movement in both directions. There are additional tracks at several yards and a 

number of parallel sidings (controlled sidings), typically two to three miles long connected to the 

main line at both ends within interlockings. Controlled sidings are located where CSXT has small 

freight yards and/or access to on-line shippers and consignees that can be serviced clear of the 

main line. Controlled sidings form three-track mainlines at selected locations. Limited to 30 mph, 

they are used to move trains around for maintenance on the main line tracks or to “pocket” a freight 

train to temporarily relieve congestion on the main tracks. Controlled sidings in this segment are 

located as follows:

• Amsterdam CP 173 to CP 175 10,900 feet long – north side

• Fonda CP 184 to CP 188 16,200 feet long – north side

• St. Johnsville CP 203 to CP 207 18,200 feet long – north side

• Little Falls CP 215 to CP 218 18,200 feet long – north side

• Oneida Yard CP 263 to CP 266 10,700 feet long – south side

• Belle Isle Yard CP 293 to CP 296 15,300 feet long – north side 

West of Hoffmans, the Rule 261 bidirectional signaling with centralized traffic control continues, 

but there is no cab signaling on this segment. The heavy volume of CSXT freight trains accessing the 

Empire Corridor from Selkirk Yard, therefore, does not need to be equipped with cab signaling. FRA 

regulations limit maximum speed without cab signaling to 79 mph.

CSXT Rochester and Buffalo Terminal Subdivisions: West of Syracuse, the Empire Corridor 

continues as double track, signaled for movement in both directions. There are additional tracks at 

several yards and a number of parallel controlled sidings in this segment, where there is local 

freight switching of on-line customers. Controlled sidings in this segment are located as follows:

• Savannah CP 320 to CP 323 13,400 feet long – north side

• Lyons Yard CP 334 to CP 335 5,960 feet long – north side

• Rochester CP 367 to CP 373 27,984 feet long – north side

• Chili CP 380 to CP 382 10,100 feet long – north side

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-33

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

• Batavia CP 402 to CP 406 10,100 feet long – north side

The signaling in this segment is identical to that of the Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions. 

Niagara Branch

CSXT Niagara Subdivision: This segment is a mix of double and single track, with two single-track 

sections on the south (9.5 miles) and north (5 miles). Single track starts at the beginning of this 

segment in downtown Buffalo, continuing through Exchange Street to CP 8, for a distance of 7.5 

miles. Double track extends (with each track signaled only in one direction) from CP 8 to CP 17, for 

a distance of 9.7 miles. The line is then single track from CP 17 to CP 22, for a distance of 5.5 miles. 

There is a section of double track from CP 22 to CP 25 (2.3 miles) for passenger trains that access 

Niagara Falls Station. From CP 25 north, the station is on a single track controlled siding for a 

distance of 1.6 miles. In total, the portion of the Niagara Subdivision used by passenger trains has 

14.6 miles of single track and 12.0 miles of double track. 

The single track main line segments are Rule 261 bidirectional signaling with centralized traffic 

control but without cab signals. The 9.7-mile double-track section from CP 8 to CP 17 has Rule 261 

Automatic Block Signaling, which means that there are signals only in the normal right hand 

running direction. If a train has to be routed on a track not signaled for its direction of travel, the 

train requires special clearance from the CSXT dispatcher and must operate at a reduced speed. 

The short section of double track from CP 22 to CP 25 is governed by Rule 261, signaled for 

movement in both directions. Speeds up to 79 mph are allowed by FRA in non-cab signaled 

locations such as this segment. The current maximum speed of 60 mph is dictated by FRA Class 3 

Track (60 mph for passenger), signal block spacing, automatic grade crossing warning system start 

points, and curve restrictions where speeds are less than 60 mph.

2.8.2. Stations and Parking

There are 16 existing stations with Amtrak service located in metropolitan areas along the Empire 

Corridor, in addition to 24 other stations serviced by Metro-North along the route segment south of 

Poughkeepsie. Exhibit 2-22 presents the Amtrak stations, and the boardings and alightings 

occurring at each station, in FY 2010. Empire Corridor stations comprised 98.6 percent of total 

New York State station usage in FY 2010, which totaled 10,276,419 passengers. (Note that more 

than 80 percent of passengers in FY 2010 used Penn Station, but not necessarily for Empire 

Corridor service.) 

Most of the passenger stations, including those in Schenectady, Amsterdam, Rochester, Buffalo 

Depew, Buffalo Exchange Street, and Niagara Falls, are physically obsolete and have experienced 

deferred maintenance, contributing to the overall perception that passenger rail service along 

Empire Corridor West is not an attractive, convenient, or reliable travel option. The following is a 

description of the stations along the Empire Corridor. Parking at each station was estimated based 

on information provided by the owner, 43 if available, or Amtrak, and/or review of aerial 

photography (for surface parking). Separate NEPA environmental review has been done or is 

43/ Ownership of station facilities was determined through consulting available sources, including “Great American Stations,” available 

at: http://www.greatamericanstations.com/station-resources/stations_by_state

Page 2-34 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 2-22—2010 Empire Corridor Amtrak Station Boardings and Alightings

Station Boardings & 

Alightings

FY 2010

Distance between 

Stops (mi)

Penn Station 8,377,944 -

Yonkers 20,433 14

Croton-Harmon 41,570 18

Poughkeepsie 75,775 41

Rhinecliff 158,534 15

Hudson 150,197 25

Albany-Rensselaer 737,259 28

Schenectady 56,125 18

Amsterdam 9,174 17

Utica 61,108 60

Rome 9,100 14

Syracuse 139,175 40

Rochester 128,935 80

Buffalo Depew 111,513 60

Buffalo Exchange Street 30,171 8

Niagara Falls 27,270 27

Sources: New York State Rail Plan, 2009, page 94; Amtrak Government Affairs, “ Amtrak

Fact Sheet: Fiscal Year 2010, State of New York.” November 2010. Accessed November 3, 2011.

<http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NEWYORK10.pdf>

ongoing for station work using federal funding discussed below. Each station project has 

independently utility from Empire Corridor program and would/will improve passengers 

experience using the system with or without eventual corridor improvements.

Penn Station in New York City (Exhibit 

2-23) is the busiest station in the nation, 

and is owned by Amtrak. The station 

features 21 station tracks, 11 platforms, 

four interlockings, and two passenger 

concourse levels. Approximately 

500,000 passengers a day pass through 

Penn Station. In addition to Amtrak 

operations, the station is used by the 

commuter rail operations of the Long 

Island Rail Road and the New Jersey 

Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT), both 

of which share tracks with Amtrak. 

Together, these three carriers operate 

over 1,000 weekday trains at Penn 

Station. 

Exhibit 2-23—Pennsylvania Station

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-35

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

The current station site has been in place since 1910, originally designed in the iconic Beaux-Arts 

style by McKim, Mead, and White. The station was demolished in 1963 and a reconstruction of the 

station’s public areas was completed in 1968, resulting in the current underground station facility. 

The track level of the station remains substantially as it was constructed in 1910, though some 

track and platform reconfiguration has taken place since then to accommodate longer commuter 

rail trains. The station has no public parking facilities, though numerous Manhattan parking 

facilities are located nearby. 

A groundbreaking for Phase I of the Moynihan Station, located across Eighth Avenue from Penn 

Station in midtown Manhattan, was held on October 18, 2010. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation is providing $83 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery (TIGER) Grants funded through ARRA to increase passenger access, streamline rail 

operations, and implement other building improvements. Subsequent phases will include a new 

train hall in the historic Farley Post Office Building, improved passenger connections between Penn 

Station and Moynihan Station, and the ultimate renovation of Penn Station itself. 

Yonkers Station, built in 1911, serves the downtown area of Yonkers via the Metro-North Hudson 

Line. It is an express station that, in addition to Amtrak Empire Corridor service, serves MetroNorth passengers from GCT in Manhattan. It has two high-level island platforms and four tracks. 

The facility is owned by Metro-North, and parking is owned by the Yonkers Parking Authority. The 

Beaux-Arts style terminal building was renovated by Metro-North in 2004. The parking lot 

accommodates 610 spaces that are shared with Metro-North commuters. Yonkers is an inner-ring 

suburb of New York City, and the station connects the high density inner-ring suburbs to the 

Empire Corridor, allowing patrons to access Amtrak without having to access New York City. 

Croton-Harmon Station, also part of the Metro-North Hudson Line, is the main transfer point for 

local and express commuter rail service. The station is served by most Amtrak Empire Corridor 

trains, with only a few express trains skipping the station. There are three center island platforms 

at the station. The parking facility accommodates 2,000 spaces, which are shared with Metro-North 

commuters. The station marks the end of the electrified territory from GCT and is the site of major 

shop facilities for Metro-North. Uses around the station include a rail layover facility on the west 

side of the tracks. Croton Harmon Station serves a similar purpose as Yonkers Station, except that 

it is a catchment area for a larger region of outer-ring rural and small town markets. 

Poughkeepsie Station, modeled after GCT, is a Beaux-Arts style terminal with an overhead 

walkway connecting to a parking garage. Poughkeepsie Station and the parking garage are owned 

by Metro-North. Improvements to this historic station, built in 1918, were made in 2002 and 

included enhanced connectivity to the city’s Main Street and a large commuter parking garage. The 

station is equipped with a high-level island and a side platform, accessing three tracks. Parking 

spaces at Poughkeepsie Station total 1,123. These spaces are shared with commuters, so that only a 

portion may be available for Amtrak patrons, dependent on time of day.

Rhinecliff Station, located in the hamlet of Rhinebeck, serves northern Dutchess County and the 

Kingston area across the Hudson River. The station experienced the third highest Amtrak 

boardings/alightings in the state in FY 2010 and is frequented by longer distance commuters using 

Amtrak service. Owned by Amtrak, with parking owned by Amtrak/CSX, the station has one center 

island, low-level platform that serves both tracks. There are 183 parking spaces available. 

Hudson Station, built in 1874, is the oldest operating passenger rail station in the state of New 

Page 2-36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

York. Owned by Amtrak, with parking owned by Amtrak/City of Hudson, the Hudson Station has 

two short, low-level platforms, with access to the normally southbound platform requiring 

passengers to cross the normally northbound track at grade. CSXT enforces a “one train at a time” 

rule at the station because of the at-grade track crossing, even though there are two physicallyseparate tracks and platforms. There are 185 parking spaces at the station. Amtrak does not have 

any plans to expand services or facilities at this time. 

Albany-Rensselaer Station, with the 

second highest boardings/alightings in 

the state, was the ninth busiest station in 

the Amtrak system nationally in FY 2010. 

The station is located in Rensselaer, 1.5 

miles from downtown Albany (Exhibit 

2-24). Prior to the 1971 advent of 

Amtrak, intercity passenger trains 

operated out of the historic Union Station 

in downtown Albany; however, the use of 

Union Station was abandoned in 1968 as 

a cost-cutting move by Penn Central 

Railroad and the facilities were moved to 

Rensselaer. 

The station is a large, newer intermodal 

facility owned and constructed by the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) in 2002, 

replacing two terminal buildings constructed in 1968 and 1980. The station has three tracks and 

two mostly high-level center island platforms. The easterly platform services only one track on the 

west. The track bay on the east, between platform and station, is currently vacant but was designed 

to accommodate a planned fourth station track. The station accommodates 1,400 spaces in a 

parking garage and surface parking immediately adjacent to the station. 

Amtrak and NYSDOT completed demolition of the previous terminal facilities in February 2011 to 

accommodate construction of a fourth track at Albany-Rensselaer Station. The track project will 

increase station capacity and improve operating flexibility, leading to more efficient passenger 

boarding and better OTP. 

Schenectady Station, constructed in 1979, is located adjacent to (and at a lower level than) the 

existing rail platform between the two tracks in downtown Schenectady. All Amtrak services stop 

at this station, including the Adirondack and Ethan Allen trains that diverge onto the adjacent 

Canadian Pacific main line to the north. The station platform is a single, low island platform about 

745 feet long. Amtrak owns the station building and the Schenectady Metroplex Development 

Authority owns the southern parking lot. There are approximately 158 parking spaces available for 

Amtrak use. NYSDOT received $18.1 million in federal HSIPR funding toward the construction of a 

replacement station. 

Amsterdam Station, constructed in 1973, is a small, brick shelter owned by Amtrak. The station 

has a single, low-level side platform located on the Track 1 side and 22 parking spaces. Generally, 

passenger trains are routed in both directions to Track 1 for boarding. When passenger trains must 

use Track 2, approaching trains on Track 1 must hold outside of the station because boarding 

passengers cross Track 1 at grade to access Track 2. 

Exhibit 2-24—Albany-Rensselaer Station

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-37

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

The Boehlert Center at Union Station in Utica is served by Amtrak and the Adirondack Scenic 

Railroad. All eight daily Amtrak passenger trains stop at Utica. The historic station was originally 

built in 1914 and renovated in 1978; several phases of improvements are ongoing. Utica Station 

and the parking area are owned by Oneida County. The station has two low-level platforms; a side 

platform to Track 2 and a center island platform serving Track 1 and a track used by the 

Adirondack Scenic Railroad excursion trains. There are approximately 200 parking spaces. The 

station is located in the Central Business District, near tourist, institutional and business 

attractions. 

Rome Station was constructed in 1914 and renovated in 2004. The station is located in proximity 

to the canal waterfront, and neighboring commercial districts in downtown Rome. Rome Station is 

owned by the City of Rome, has a low-level, center island platform, as well as a platform on the side 

of the station house itself, and 32 parking spaces. 

The William F. Walsh Station in Downtown Syracuse is considered a long–distance multi-modal 

terminal, providing bus connections to intercity operators and the city’s CENTRO buses. All eight 

daily Amtrak trains stop at Syracuse. The station opened in 1999, replacing the Amtrak station 

previously located in East Syracuse. Syracuse Station has a single, high-level center island platform 

and 280 parking spaces. There is presently only one track adjacent to the center platform with 

provision made for a second track between the platform and the station building. The facility, 

platforms, and parking are owned by Intermodal Transportation Center, Inc. A HSIPR grant of 

$18.5 million will cover final design and construction to provide congestion relief in the vicinity of 

Syracuse Station and CSXT’s DeWitt freight yard to improve Amtrak service on the Empire Corridor.

Rochester Station was constructed in 1978. All eight daily Amtrak trains stop at Rochester. The 

station is well-located in the densest portion of downtown Rochester, near educational, tourist, 

institutional and business uses and attractions. Rochester Station and north parking lot are owned 

by Amtrak. NYSDOT owns the southern parking lot. The station currently has a single, low-level 

side platform located on the Track 2 (south) side. Former center island platforms were accessed 

via a subway and stairs, but this access was filled in and the platforms removed as part of the 1978 

project. There are a total of 95 parking spaces. The Rochester Intermodal Station project has 

received $15 million in federal TIGER funds for final design and construction. 

Buffalo-Depew Station, located in Depew, is 

a relatively small suburban facility 

constructed in 1979 (Exhibit 2-25). All eight 

Amtrak intercity passenger trains stop at 

Buffalo Depew. Buffalo-Depew Station and 

parking lots are owned by NYSDOT. The 

station has one low-level side platform 

located on Track 2 side (south). There are 

135 parking spaces in both east and west lots. 

The station is located outside of the Central 

Business District and is surrounded by several 

large industrial and commercial operations. 

The station is close to the Buffalo Niagara 

International Airport. 

Buffalo-Depew Station has received an HSIPR 

grant of $770,000 for state-of-good-repair Exhibit 2-25—Buffalo Depew Station

Page 2-38 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

improvements and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) accessibility. This work was completed in 

2013. 

Buffalo Exchange Street Station is located within walking distance of central business district 

destinations and is served by municipal bus. The station was constructed in 1952 and is a small 

brick structure with a single low-level platform. The City of Buffalo owns the station building and 

parking lot, with parking for 20 cars. The station is served by the Amtrak Maple Leaf and four daily 

Niagara Falls trains. The station is not served by the Lake Shore Limited because the station is 

located on the Niagara Branch, just north of the track split between routes to Chicago and to 

Toronto. 

Niagara Falls Station is a one- and two-story brick building, located at the terminus of the Empire 

Corridor. It was formerly a freight house built for the Lehigh Valley Railroad in 1959. There is a 

short segment of high-level platform at one end of the building to the track closest to the building. 

All other boarding locations are low-level platforms. In addition to accessing one through track (for 

Maple Leaf service), the station includes two stub-ended tracks where Amtrak trains layover during 

the overnight hours. Train cleaning and minor maintenance is performed at this location. Owasco 

River Railway, Inc. owns the facility and parking area. There are 40 parking spaces available. The 

station includes facilities for Amtrak operating crews and personnel. The current land uses near 

this station include layover yards, industrial buildings, and underutilized properties near Highway 

61 that passes by the station to the west.

State and local governments plan on building a new multi-million dollar intermodal transportation 

center out of the U.S. Customhouse to replace the current station. This work is to be part of a three 

phase project titled the Niagara Falls International Railway Station. It calls for the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to share with Amtrak a complex consisting of the old customhouse and modern 

additions. The project consists of three phases, with a total estimated cost of $44 million. 

Construction on the project began in August 2010, with funding only for the first two phases. In 

October 2010, the US Department of Transportation released $16.5 million in funds from the TIGER 

program for work on the final phase of the International Station project. The new station will be 

located about two miles north of the present location, closer to the major Niagara Falls tourism 

destinations. 

2.8.3. Rail Yards and Maintenance Facilities

Exhibit 2-4 and Exhibit 2-5 present the approximate locations of major Amtrak, Metro-North, and 

CSXT rail yards and maintenance facilities located on the Empire Corridor. 

Amtrak Facilities

Amtrak operates two major maintenance facilities in New York State: Sunnyside Yard in New York 

City and Albany-Rensselaer. Sunnyside Yard, located in Queens, is the Penn Station area support 

facility where Amtrak stores and maintains the rolling stock used in the Empire Corridor services. 

In addition to servicing Amtrak’s conventional trains, Sunnyside also serves as a facility for Acela 

Express train sets. The Albany-Rensselaer facility, located just north of Albany-Rensselaer Station, 

serves as the primary maintenance facility for the Empire Corridor. Amtrak maintains a major car 

and locomotive shop, train storage yard, and maintenance-of-way depot. A smaller facility located 

in Niagara Falls provides turnaround services to New York-Buffalo-Niagara Falls Empire Service 

trains. Exhibit 2-26 provides a summary of the rolling stock storage and maintenance facilities for 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-39

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Amtrak.

Metro-North Facilities

Metro-North maintains large shop facilities at Croton-Harmon Station, the end of electrified train 

territory. An older shop facility is located just northwest of the station and a new, recently 

completed shop facility, is located just west of the station. The facility maintains all types of MetroNorth equipment, including electric multiple unit rail cars, as well as non-powered coaches, straight 

diesel electric, and dual mode (electric/diesel electric) locomotives. There are also storage tracks 

for trains stored overnight and weekends and maintenance of way equipment. 

Just north of Poughkeepsie Station, there are two to three tracks located on each side of the main 

line. These had been used exclusively for freight, but are now used to store and stage Metro-North 

train sets. 

CSXT Facilities

CSXT maintains a 4,000-foot-long, double ended freight yard located about 1.5 miles north of

Croton-Harmon Station. The yard is comprised of seventeen to eighteen tracks. It lies between the 

main line and the Hudson River and is used to sort and store cars destined to and from various 

freight shippers and consignees along the Hudson Line. 

At Hudson Station, there is a small five-track freight yard, other ancillary tracks and a wye that 

connects to the Claverack Industrial Track, a short branch located to the east to access a cement 

plant. The plant has recently closed, and the track is out of service.

Dewitt Yard, a major freight classification yard and intermodal facility, is located east of Syracuse 

(MPs 282.5-286). This facility is almost four miles long and consists of two intermodal facilities, a 

classification/storage yard for general merchandise freight trains, a block swapping44 yard closest 

to the main line, locomotive maintenance facility, and maintenance of way depot. The intermodal 

facilities at Dewitt perform a “filleting” operation on double stack container trains destined for New 

Exhibit 2-26—Summary of Amtrak Rolling Stock Storage and Maintenance Facilities

Name/Location Primary Function for 

Empire Corridor

Daily Clean 

& Service FRA Inspections Heavy Repairs

Amtrak Shops Maintenance 

Facility for Empire 

Corridor

● ● ●

Albany-Rensselaer

Sunnyside Yard Overnight Storage 

& Servicing, 2 

Trains

●

Queens, NYC

Station Tracks Overnight Storage 

& Servicing, 2 

Trains

●

Niagara Falls

44/ A block is a group of rail cars all destined to a specific location or yard. A through freight train that is not a unit train typically has 

several blocks of cars. At Dewitt, the many intermodal trains that run on this line from distant points often add or drop blocks of cars 

that match the train’s destination. Essentially, the trains are swapping blocks with each other – block swapping. 

Page 2-40 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

England, due to clearance restrictions on the Boston & Albany Line. On eastbound trains, the top 

containers are removed to reduce the trains’ vertical clearance requirement while containers are 

added to westbound trains. CSXT and the State of Massachusetts are working together to improve 

Boston & Albany Line clearances, while, at the same time, relocating most of the Boston area 

intermodal activity that occurs at Beacon Park to an expanded intermodal facility in Worcester. 

With these changes, the Dewitt “filleting” operation may not be necessary or considerably reduced. 

Other CSXT yards on the CSXT Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions are generally small and consist of 

the following, from east to west:

• Kellogg’s Yard, just east of Amsterdam, on the north side of the main line, consists of a 2.5-milelong siding, two or three short tracks and the Kellogg’s Industrial track that diverges north.

• Fonda Yard, on the north side of the main line, consists of a two-mile-long siding and two or 

three shorter tracks. This used to be the interchange to the Fonda, Johnstown, and Gloversville 

Railroad, which is now abandoned.

• Saint Johnsville, on the north side of the main line, consists of a 3.6-mile-long siding and one or 

two short tracks near the town center. 

• Little Falls, on the north side of the main line, consists of a 3.1-mile-long siding with several 

short spurs.

• At Utica, CSXT has ancillary tracks of its own. There are two connections to the Mohawk, 

Adirondack, and Northern short line, which has taken over most of the remaining track in what 

was in the past, a major yard, north and east of the station. Just west of the station on the south 

side of the main line is a small six-track yard and maintenance facility of the New York, 

Susquehanna, and Western Railroad that diverges south towards Binghamton.

• At Oneida, there is a 2.1-mile siding on the south side of the main line and the remnants of a 

small yard, mostly removed.

• Small yards and junctions are located east of Syracuse. Belle Isle Yard is on the north side of the 

main lines and consists of just two to three long tracks. Solvay Yard is south of the main line 

and consists of 16 tracks that curve away to the south. There are a number of diverging 

branches, industrial tracks, short line railroads, and a wye where CSXT’s Saint Lawrence 

Subdivision diverges. 

The large number of active yards, industrial sidings and junctions that exist from Dewitt Yard 

through Syracuse (MP 278.2 to MP 296.8) create significant operating congestion. Complex track 

layouts include yard leads on both ends of Dewitt Yard, various industry sidings on both sides of the 

main line, interchanges with two shortline carriers, and junctions with several CSXT freight lines 

just west of Syracuse. 

Goodman Yard is located in Rochester, serving as the city’s primary freight facility. It is less than 

one mile long. Goodman Yard consists of 17 double ended tracks; a small, currently inactive 

intermodal facility, now used as a transflo (bulk commodity transfer) facility, and an open air 

locomotive maintenance facility. Goodman Yard primarily supports local industry and cars to and 

from the Charlotte Running Track and short-line Rochester Southern Railroad, both connecting to 

the Rochester Subdivision just west of Rochester. 

The Buffalo Terminal Subdivision includes both a major freight facility, Frontier Yard, and a series 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-41

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

of complex junctions where various rail lines diverge in several directions. Frontier Yard formerly 

served as a major CSXT classification yard, but since 2009, the work of sorting cars for through 

trains has been reassigned to Dewitt and facilities in Ohio. 

Other CSXT yards located along the CSXT Rochester and Buffalo Terminal Subdivisions are 

generally small and consist of the following, from east to west:

• Lyons Yard, a small 2,500-foot long yard with eight remaining tracks. Lyons Yard supports local 

industry and is an interchange point with a Norfolk Southern RR branch. 

• Batavia Yard, a small 3,000-foot long yard with a controlled siding and three remaining tracks. 

Batavia Yard is the interchange point with short line Depew, Lancaster & Western Railroad.

There are several freight yards just off the CSXT Niagara Subdivision. Niagara Yard is a major CSXT 

freight yard located just south across the tracks from the Niagara Falls Station and extends east 

from there for over one mile.

There are two stub-ended tracks at Niagara Falls Station designated “the house” and “the middle.” 

Each track can hold one Empire Corridor train set. Minimal servicing such as refueling, cleaning,

and minor emergency repairs can be done to Empire Corridor trains between their runs.

2.8.4. Bridges and Tunnels

Bridges

There are more than 300 bridges located along the Empire Corridor, as well as a number of smaller 

culverts. There are at least 43 bridges located along Empire Corridor South, 249 bridges located 

along Empire Corridor West, and 41 bridges located along the Niagara Branch. Some of the larger 

bridges are listed in Exhibit 2-27. 

Empire Corridor South

There are three major bridge structures located on the northern half of the corridor, as shown on 

Exhibit 2-27. There are a large number of small bridges and culverts located on the Hudson Line 

from Spuyten-Duyvil Bridge to Croton-Harmon Station. Running along the east bank of the Hudson, 

many small water courses pass under the railroad. There are eight larger structures located on the 

north end of this segment. There are many small bridges and culverts that drain small water 

courses into the Hudson River located along the Hudson Line north of Croton-Harmon Station to 

Poughkeepsie. A few of the bridges are longer and include a small drawbridge. 

There are 32 undergrade bridges and 35 culverts located along the CSXT Hudson Subdivision South 

of Albany segment. Twelve bridges located over waterways are more substantial. There are 

approximately 26 undergrade bridges and an unknown number of culverts located on the CSXT 

Hudson Subdivision west of Albany-Rensselaer. Two of the bridges are significant structures and 

include the Livingston Avenue swing span bridge over the Hudson River. This bridge is in poor 

condition and programmed to be replaced. The other significant undergrade bridge is located over 

the Mohawk River in Schenectady. 

Page 2-42 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 2-27—Major Bridges along Empire Corridor

Segment Milepost Location Description

Empire Connection 

from Penn Station to 

Spuyten Duyvil Bridge MP 5.3

2,040-foot long double track viaduct, short span deck plate girders 

with ballasted deck, 13 foot track centers. This structure is located 

against the Henry Hudson Parkway to the west and close to the 

Riverside Drive viaduct to the east.

MP 9.2

184-foot long double track bridge over Dyckman Street, consisting of 

four spans (two short spans over sidewalks and longer spans over 

roadway), deck plate girder, ballasted deck, 13-foot track centers. 

MP 10.0 Harlem Ship 

Canal

620-foot long open deck bridge consisting of three 110-foot long, 

double track, through truss spans and a 290-foot long, double track, 

cantilevered, through truss swing span. Girder spacing indicates 

only 12-foot track centers on the bridge; however only a single track 

on east side at present.

Metro-North Hudson 

Line from SpuytenDuyvil to CrotonHarmon

MP 14.9 - Main Street, 

Yonkers

70-foot through plate girders for 5 tracks, only 4 in use

MP 15.0 – Dock Street, 

Yonkers

Variable spans from 44 to 140 feet, as road widens under tracks. 

Supports four tracks and part of station platforms. Structure type 

unknown.

MP 15.1 – Wells Ave., 

Yonkers

66- to 74-foot total length, multiple short spans. Outside girders are 

through plate girders, interior support unknown. Supports four 

tracks plus station platforms.

MP 15.4 – Ashburton 

Ave., Yonkers

54-foot through plate girders supporting six tracks. Only five tracks 

at present, easterly bay is vacant.

MP 26.9 – Philipse 

Manor

2 span, 30-foot total, concrete box culvert over waterway, supports 

four tracks.

MP 29.6 – Scarborough

3 span structure, total length of 56 feet, unknown structure type. 

Supports four tracks and northerly side platforms of Scarborough 

Station over water.

MP 30.9 – Ossining 40-foot through plate girders over stream. Supports four tracks just 

north of Ossining Station

MP 32.7 – Croton River

4 – 100-foot spans. Two center tracks on through truss with 12 foot 

track centers. Outer two tracks on independent through plate 

girders. 

CSXT Hudson 

Subdivision from 

Poughkeepsie to 

Albany-Rensselaer

MP 85.45 –

Vanderburgh Cove

105 feet long – 3 - 35-foot spans, deck plate girder, ballasted deck. 

Two tracks on structure, at present, bridge was four tracks. 

Westerly bay removed, easterly bay still in place for railroad 

maintenance road.

MP 95.7

Three small bridges along the Tivoli Bay Causeway, from south to 

north: 65-foot single span, through plate girder, open deck –two 

tracks only; 65-foot single span, through plate girder, open deck –

two tracks only; 110 feet long – 2-55-foot spans, through plate 

girder, ballasted deck –two tracks only

MP 97.35 Cruger Island – 80 feet long – 2-40-foot spans, through plate girder, 

open deck

MP 87.96 Soldiers Brook – 52-foot single span, through plate girder, ballasted 

deck

MP 109.03– Janson Kill

342 feet long – Main center portion of bridge is a 274-foot long four 

span through plate girder of varying span lengths with a short 44-

foot long, 2 span deck plate girder on south approach and a 24-foot 

single span deck plate girder on north approach. Main bridge is 

ballasted deck, approach spans are open deck

MP 115.57 – North Bay 132 feet long, 5-26.5-foot spans (appear to be concrete), newer 

construction, ballasted deck

MP 118.30 – Flood 

Brook

80-foot single span through plate girder, ballasted deck

MP 118.58 – Stockport 

Creek

510 feet long, 3-170-foot spans, through truss, open deck

MP 133.35 – Miitzes Kill 50-foot single span through plate girder, open deck 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-43

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Exhibit 2-27—Major Bridges along Empire Corridor

Segment Milepost Location Description

MP 133.95– Sampson 

Creek

30-foot single span through plate girder, ballasted deck

MP 135.24 –

Moordener Kill

62-foot single span through plate girder, open deck. Four bays in 

place.

MP 135.82 – Stoney 

Point

66-foot single span through plate girder, open deck. Two parallel 

bridges for four tracks, two existing tracks on either side of center 

girder.

CSXT Hudson 

Subdivision – West of 

Albany-Rennselaer

Livingston Avenue 

Drawbridge over the 

Hudson River

Overall length of 1,270 feet. The bridge is double track at 13-foot 

track centers and consists of three, fixed through trusses, several 

shorter deck plate girders on the east side of the River with a main 

span consisting of a 262-foot cantilever through truss swing span. 

This bridge is in poor condition and programmed to be replaced.

Mohawk River in 

Schenectady

This bridge is 720 feet long, consisting of 10-72-foot spans of deck 

plate girders, open deck, double track. Track exists only on the 

south (upstream) side of the structure.

CSXT Selkirk and 

Mohawk Subdivisions MP 209.83 Canada 

Creek

Two span, dual through truss with two 90-foot spans. The bridges 

share the center truss so that both are still in place, with the railroad 

using the southern half of the structure.

Park Street, MP 291.62 This bridge has been reconstructed and provides only for the two 

current tracks

Onondaga Creek, MP 

292.18

This bridge has been reconstructed and provides only for the two 

current tracks

MP 222.74- Mohawk 

River (also known as 

Canada Creek)

This structure consists of 8 - 75-foot deck plate girders, with all four 

track bays in place and the railroad occupying the two southerly 

bays

CSXT Rochester 

Subdivision and 

Buffalo Terminal 

Division

North Plymouth 

Avenue in Rochester

This bridge can only accommodate the three tracks currently on the 

bridge.

Seneca River The largest structures include the 1,775, foot bridge near Savannah 

over the Montezuma Marsh

Genesee River The bridge over the river in Rochester

Empire Corridor West

There are 118 undergrade bridges located along the CSXT Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions 

segment. Most were constructed to accommodate four tracks at 13-foot track centers. There are a 

few that have been reconstructed and provide only for the two current tracks. Most of the bridges 

are relatively small. Two of the larger structures are located over Canada Creek. The bridges share 

the center truss, so that both are still in place, with the railroad using the southern half of the 

structure. The longest bridge located along the CSXT Selkirk and Mohawk Subdivisions is over the 

Mohawk River (also known as Canada Creek) at MP 222.74. There are 105 undergrade bridges 

located along the CSXT Rochester and Buffalo Terminal Subdivisions segment. Most were 

constructed to accommodate four tracks at 13 foot track centers or less. The largest concentration 

of undergrade bridges is located in Rochester. The largest structures include the 1,775-foot Seneca 

River/Montezuma Marsh open deck bridge near Savannah, dating to 1924 and consisting of 89 

spans averaging 20 feet in length. Other large structures include the bridge over the Genesee River 

in Rochester and several single-span through truss bridges. 

Page 2-44 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Niagara Branch

There are 41 undergrade bridges located along the CSXT Niagara Subdivision segment. All bridges 

have provisions for two or more tracks. 

Tunnels

Most of the Empire Corridor tunnels are located in the southern portion of the Empire Corridor 

(refer to Exhibit 2-28), but tunnels are also located on the Niagara Branch, as shown on Exhibit 

2-28.

Exhibit 2-28—Tunnels along Empire Corridor

Segment Milepost 

Location

Description

Empire Corridor South

MP 0 to MP 5

Tunnel from Penn Station to 123rd Street, with daylighted 

sections occurring between the following city streets: 

36th – 39th; 43rd – 46th; 48th-49th; 60th-61st

MP 36.62 Osca Tunnel – 250 feet long

MP 43.62 Little Tunnel – 75 feet long

MP 44.40 Middle Tunnel – 300 feet long

MP 45.07 Route 6 Tunnel – 175 feet long

MP 50.06 Garrison Tunnel – 450 feet long

MP 54.52 Breakneck Tunnel – 550 feet long

MP 91.33 Rhinecliff Tunnel – 230 feet long

Niagara Branch MP QDN2.1 Two tunnels run under I-190/Route 5 interchange, both 

MP QDN2.2 500 feet long

2.8.5. Grade Crossings

Grade crossings occur where the tracks cross a road at the same elevation. Grade crossings can 

present a safety concern due to the potential for collision of a train with a motor vehicle, pedestrian, 

or bicyclist. Section 2.9 includes a discussion of safety considerations with grade crossings. There 

are a total of 365 grade crossings located along the Empire Corridor, according to information from 

New York State Geographic Information System (NYSGIS). Of these, 138 are private crossings and 

227 are public crossings. 

Empire Corridor South

There are no grade crossings located on the southernmost Empire Connection segment.

There are no public crossings located on the Hudson Line from Spuyten-Duyvil to Croton-Harmon 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-45

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

Station. There are several grade crossings located along the Hudson Line north of Croton-Harmon 

Station, including both public and private crossings 

There are 9 public crossings and 14 private crossings on the CSXT Hudson Subdivision south of 

Albany. The public crossings all have automatic warning systems, and several of the more active 

private crossings also have active warning systems.

There are 5 public crossings and 3 private crossings along the CSXT Hudson Subdivision West of 

Albany-Rensselaer. All public crossings have automatic highway crossing warning systems. The 

private crossings have only passive warning devices (signage).

Empire Corridor West

There are 18 public crossings and 80 private crossings located along the CSXT Selkirk and Mohawk 

Subdivisions. All of the public crossings have automatic highway crossing warning systems, as do a 

few of the more active private crossings. Most of the private crossings have only passive warning 

systems.

There are 56 public crossings and 40 private crossings in the CSXT Rochester and Buffalo Terminal 

Subdivisions. All of the public crossings have automatic highway crossing warning systems and a 

few of the more active private crossings do also. Most of the private crossings have only passive 

warning systems.

Niagara Branch

There are 12 public crossings and approximately 14 private crossings in the CSXT Niagara 

Subdivision segment. All of the public crossings have automatic highway crossing warning systems. 

It appears the private crossings have only passive warning systems.

2.8.6. Rolling Stock

Rolling stock on the Empire Corridor consists of locomotives pulling unpowered coaches. The 

locomotives operating on the Empire Corridor South are P32AC-DM (Dual Mode) models, which 

provide for electrified third rail access to Penn Station. Diesel locomotives cannot operate in Penn 

Station where all tracks are electrified, most with both over running contact rails (third rail) and 

overhead catenary. Some Empire Corridor West trains change engines in Albany from the dual 

mode locomotives to P40 or P42 conventional diesel locomotives. All three locomotive types date 

to the early 1990s and were originally built by General Electric. All are capable of 110 mph 

operation and regularly achieve this speed in segments of the corridor between Hudson and 

Schenectady, but a long period of acceleration is required.

The cars are Amfleet I coaches built from 1974 to 1978, with various combinations of coach, café, 

and business class configurations. Empire Service passenger trains typically consist of one 

locomotive and five Amfleet coaches. The Lake Shore Limited train is much longer, typically 

consisting of two locomotives, a baggage car, three sleeping cars, a dining car, and four or more 

coaches.

Amtrak recently concluded a contract signing with Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles 

Page 2-46 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

(CAF), a Spanish rolling stock supplier, to replace the 1940s era sleeper, baggage, and dining cars 

used on the Lake Shore Limited. No other Empire Corridor rolling stock replacement is currently 

underway.

NYSDOT is an active participant in the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool committee 

established by Amtrak under the requirements of Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Specification development has been completed for both the Next 

Generation locomotives and the single-level coaches to be used on eastern U.S. trains. Future 

equipment used on the Empire Corridor will meet the 305 specification.

2.9. Safety Considerations

The safety of Empire Corridor passengers is of the utmost importance. Ten years of safety data 

made available from the FRA Office of Safety Analysis, from January 2002 through December 2011, 

were analyzed for counties located along the Empire Corridor. Data on injuries and fatalities were 

provided for train accidents, highway-rail incidents, and other accidents/incidents.45 The FRA 

defines accidents/incidents as collisions, derailments, and other events involving the operation of 

on-track equipment and causing reportable damage above an established threshold; impacts 

between railroad on-track equipment and highway users at crossings; and all other incidents or 

exposures that cause a fatality of injury to any person, or an occupational illness to a railroad 

employee. Accidents and incidents are divided into Train Accidents, Highway-Rail Incidents, and 

Other, as follows:

• Train accidents are safety-related events involving on-track rail equipment (both standing and 

moving) that cause monetary damage to the rail equipment and track above a prescribed 

amount (threshold for 2008 is $8,500);

• Highway-rail grade crossing incidents are any impacts between a rail and highway user (both 

motor vehicles and other users of the crossing at a designated crossing site, including 

walkways, sidewalks, etc., associated with the crossing);

• Other incidents are any death, injury, or occupational illness of a railroad employee that are not 

the result of a "train accident” or "highway-rail incident."46

From 2002 to 2011, as shown in Exhibit 2-29, there have been 32 fatalities and 875 injuries in 

counties along the Empire Corridor. Ninety-eight percent of all accidents/injuries were classified as 

“Other,” or cases in which monetary damage was less than $8,500 or was not classified as a 

highway-rail incident.

Along the Empire Corridor, there were no train accidents, only highway-rail incidents and other 

events amounting to less than $8,500. Across the U.S. in 2009, 431 people were killed and 343 were 

injured while trespassing on railroad ROWs and property.47 A majority of all fatalities and injuries 

45/ FRA Office of Safety Analysis. “1.07 Ten Year Accident/Incident Overview by Railroad/Region/State/County.” Accessed May 22, 2012,

<http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/tenyr2a.aspx> 46/ FRA Office of Safety Analysis. “9.12 Definitions.” Accessed May 22, 2012, 

<http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Definitions.aspx> 47/ FHWA. “Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Facts and Statistics.” Accessed May 22, 2012, 

<http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/xing_facts.cfm>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-47

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

along the Empire Corridor was due to other incidents, including incidents at public crossings and 

trespassing. Furthermore, most injuries occurred to employees on duty and trespassers, rather 

than to passengers. New York County accounted for nearly 60 percent of all injuries, 16 percent of 

fatalities, and a majority of incidents occurred in this densely populated county.

Exhibit 2-29—Ten Year Safety Data in Counties along Empire Corridor, 2002-2011

County

(SE to NW)

Total Train Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Other Public Crossing

Accidents/

Incidents Fatalities Injuries Accident Injuries

Accidents/

Incidents

Fatalities/

Injuries

Accidents/

Incidents Fatalities Injuries Incidents 

New York 535 5 552 4 1 534 5 548

Bronx 9 11 9 1

Westchester 34 3 35 3 34 3 32

Putnam 1 1 1 1

Dutchess 21 4 19 2 2 19 3 18

Columbia 14 2 11 2 12 2 11 2

Rensselaer 94 1 93 94 1 93

Albany 58 3 59 58 3 59

Schenectady 10 1 10 1 9

Montgomery 5 1 4 2 1 3 3 1

Herkimer 1 1 1 1

Oneida 9 12 3 9 9

Madison

Onondaga 21 1 21 21 1 21

Cayuga

Wayne 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Monroe 17 2 13 2 15 2 13 2

Genesee 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2

Erie 26 5 21 26 5 21

Niagara 13 2 11 2 1 11 1 11 2

Total 873 32 875 10 14 6 859 27 863 10

Note: No data were available for Madison or Cayuga counties.

Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis

From 2002 to 2011, there were ten incidents at public grade crossings along the Empire Corridor; 

seven of these incidents resulted in injuries but no fatalities. Comparatively, in the U.S. in 2009 

alone, there were 1,896 incidents at public highway-rail crossings, resulting in 247 deaths and 705 

injuries.48

According to data published by the National Safety Council, highway travel is 12 to 20 times more 

likely to result in a fatality than rail travel.49 To further increase the safety of rail transportation 

and especially high speed rail, the FRA prepared a High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy in 

2012.

48/ FHWA. “Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Facts and Statistics.” Accessed May 22, 2012, 

<http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/xing_facts.cfm> 49/ FRA. “High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy”. Accessed May 22, 2012, 

<http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HSRSafetyStrategy110609.pdf>

Page 2-48 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets Tier 1 Draft EIS

Addressing grade crossings, one of the top priorities, the Safety Strategy reinforces current FRA 

regulations that require the protection of rail movements with full width barriers capable of 

absorbing the impact of maximum weight highway vehicles where train-operating speeds are 

between 111 and 125 mph and that require elimination or grade-separation of all crossings where 

trains travel at speeds above 125 mph (49 CFR 213.347).50 

The FRA Safety Strategy also includes the following recommendations for high speed passenger rail 

operations:

• Eliminate all redundant or unnecessary crossings, together with any crossings that cannot be 

made safe due to crossing geometry or proximity of complex highway intersections.

• Install the most sophisticated traffic control/warning devices compatible with the location (e.g., 

median barriers, special signage [possible active advanced warning], four-quadrant gates),

where train-operating speeds are between 80 and 110 mph.

There are nearly 365 at-grade crossings on the current Empire Corridor centerline. Once a 

preferred alternative is selected, these at-grade crossings would be either enhanced or eliminated, 

depending on the final design speed, consistent with the FRA’s regulations and guidance. 

Further safety prevention techniques that the FRA addresses are positive train control (PTC) and 

ROW safety, as well as vehicle-track interaction, maintenance, and real-time monitoring. 

According to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), PTC, a system designed to prevent 

collisions between trains, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zone, and the 

movement of a train through an improperly positioned switch, will be required on certain lines of 

Class 1 freight and passenger rail carriers, including the Empire Corridor trackage of Amtrak, CSXT, 

and Metro-North, by the end of 2015 (pending legislation would defer implementation in some 

cases but the outcome of the proposed legislation is uncertain). The FRA is implementing the 

legislative PTC requirements, including application to dedicated (passenger train only) high-speed 

rail lines; the RSIA language currently applies only to certain lines of Class 1 carriers and regularly 

scheduled intercity or commuter passenger operations. 

ROW safety measures include prevention of vandalism, launching of objects from overhead bridges 

or structures into the path of trains, and/or the intrusion of vehicles from adjacent ROW. While 

these are always important issues, protecting the HSR’s ROW from overhead bridges or structures 

is especially important if all at-grade crossings are eliminated, as objects or even vehicles could fall 

from the overpasses and land on the tracks. European HSR uses intrusion detection nets (e.g., 

infrared, microwave, video technology) to communicate any hazards that may be on the tracks at 

overpass intersections.51.

50/ FRA. “High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy”. Accessed May 22, 2012, 

<http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HSRSafetyStrategy110609.pdf> 51/ Federal Railroad Administration. “High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy”. Accessed May 22, 2012, 

<http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HSRSafetyStrategy110609.pdf>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 2-49

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 2-50 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

3. Alternatives

This chapter describes program alternatives, including how they were developed, and examines the 

engineering aspects of all feasible alternatives to address the program purpose, needs, and 

objectives described in Chapter 1. Alternatives that were considered, but not advanced for further 

study, are also described along with the reasons for not advancing them. 

There are several aspects to each alternative including operational changes, investments in 

infrastructure, and equipment. The reasonable alternatives advanced for further study are 

compared in Chapter 6.

The specific operational and physical elements used to define the alternatives consist of: 

• Maximum authorized speed (MAS); 

• Frequency of service; 

• Schedule enhancements, including express service; 

• Track, bridge, signal and grade crossing improvements; 

• Station and facility improvements; 

• Equipment (locomotives and coaches); 

• Capital costs at a program level; and 

• Operations and maintenance costs.

The performance measures used to gauge how each alternative meets program goals and 

objectives include: 

• Trip time, 

• On-time performance (OTP), 

• Ridership, and 

• Revenue. 

The improvements needed in infrastructure and train service performance, include:

• Reduce infrastructure constraints, and 

• Accommodate existing and projected demand. 

The following performance objectives have been identified for the High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Program as measurable objectives that directly relate to the program purpose and need to 

reduce infrastructure constraints to accommodate existing and projected demand:

• Improve system-wide on-time performance (OTP) to at least 90 percent;

• Reduce travel time along all segments of the Empire Corridor;

• Increase the frequency of service (number of daily round trips) along Empire Corridor West 

beyond the existing four daily round trips;

• Attract additional passengers;

• Reduce automobile trips, thereby reducing highway congestion;

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-1

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

• Minimize interference with freight rail operations. 

These six performance objectives are used to evaluate and rank how the high-speed rail 

alternatives meet the goals and objectives for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The 

environmental impacts of these alternatives are also considered, as presented in this Tier 1 Draft 

EIS, and will be an important factor in selecting the alternative to be advanced. 

3.1. Alternatives Development and Screening

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has established three levels of high-speed rail service 

along with planning guidelines for each: Emerging, Regional and Core Express as shown in Exhibit 

3-1.

The “Emerging” category is used to describe relatively frequent service used to connect smaller 

communities, and having speeds up to 90 miles per hour (mph), on tracks shared by freight, 

commuter, and intercity passenger rail.

Exhibit 3-1—FRA Levels of High-Speed Rail Service

Source: FRA. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America: High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. April 2009. 

Page 3-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

The “Regional” category is used to describe relatively frequent service used to connect mid-sized 

urban areas, and having speeds between 90 and 125 mph, on tracks that may be shared by freight, 

commuter, and intercity passenger rail or on tracks dedicated for passenger rail. 

The “Core Express” category is used to describe frequent service used to connect large urban 

areas, and having speeds between 125 and 250 mph or more, on tracks dedicated for intercity 

passenger rail.

Alternatives development for this program initially began with categorizing possible alternatives 

according to the FRA’s levels of high-speed rail service. Using this information, NYSDOT developed 

an initial range of possible alternatives within the framework of these categories to satisfy the 

program purpose (refer to Section 1.3). Each service level achieves different goals, provides 

different top speeds, and requires different kinds and levels of investments. The initial range of 

possible alternatives developed for this program included six groups organized by the maximum 

authorized speed associated with each group. The naming convention of the alternatives is based 

on these groupings according to the maximum authorized speed (MAS) (79 mph, 90 mph, 110 mph, 

125 mph, 160 mph, and 220 mph) with variations of the speed-based alternative designated by the 

letters A, B, and C.

• Using 79 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed represents what can be done with 

current track standards and in-cab signaling capacity. Alternatives in this category that would 

use current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets included several 

variations on the 79 mph alternative (Base, 79A, 79B, 79C) and would fall into the FRA’s 

“Emerging” category.

• Using 90 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed represents the next step up in 

track standards and in-cab signaling train control. Alternatives in this category that would use 

current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets included several 

variations on the 90 mph alternative (90A and 90B) and would fall into the FRA’s “Regional” 

category.

• Using 110 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed represents another step up in 

track standards. Described as the “110 Alternative,” this alternative would also use current 

vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets and would fall into FRA’s 

“Regional” category.

• A 125 miles per hour alternative would be the first speed threshold for electrically powered 

trains and represents another step up in track standards and advanced train control. This 

alternative would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category.

• A 160 miles per hour alternative would represent the practical upper limit of electrified 

dynamic tilt trains, such as the Amtrak Acela, which provide faster operating speeds on curves. 

This alternative represents another step up in track standards and advanced train control and 

would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category.

• A 220 miles per hour alternative represents the practical upper limit of high-speed rail 

operations seen in France, Germany, Spain, Japan and China and would fall within FRA’s “Core 

Express” category. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-3

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

In addition to maximum authorized speed, alternatives are further described in terms of service 

schedules, station stops, equipment, and physical improvements. 

3.1.1. Service Schedules and Station Stops

Service frequency was the next consideration in developing and defining alternatives. Three 

service levels were considered: 

• The existing four round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo; 

• Increasing the service to 12 round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and 

Niagara Falls;

• Increasing the service to eight round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and 

Niagara Falls with express service.

An initial group of alternatives was defined that focused on improving the reliability (on-time 

performance [OTP]) of the existing four round trips per day service. This approach focused on 

identifying capital improvements to support an 85 percent to 90 percent OTP level between 

Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls, while maintaining the existing four daily round trips 

service. 

A second group of alternatives was defined that increased service levels to 12 round trips per day 

as well as improved reliability. Preliminary Empire Corridor ridership was estimated in an 

iterative process based on varied levels of service frequency. Initial ridership forecasts were based 

on service frequencies between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls of 12 round trips per 

day. This would be a substantial service expansion with estimated gains in ridership of about 65 

percent. The ridership gains would be significantly less than the percentage increase in service 

levels (300%). Therefore, daily service levels of 12 round trips were determined to be very high 

when compared to the relatively low increase in ridership gained for the projected service increase. 

NYSDOT determined that a third group of alternatives with service levels of eight round trips per 

day as well as improved reliability was a reasonable initial balance between service attractiveness 

and operating subsidy affordability. This doubling of the existing service would result in ridership 

gains of approximately 38 percent to 74 percent over the Base Alternative depending on the 

alternative analyzed. The Base, or “No Action,” Alternative represents future conditions assuming 

currently-planned and approved projects are built, but without implementation of any of the 

“Build” Alternatives of this High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The Base Alternative is used

for comparison to all Build Alternatives. 

In addition to determining the appropriate service level (eight round trips per day), the concept of 

providing express service was also evaluated along the Empire Corridor West during development 

of the alternatives. Two of the alternatives, Alternatives 90A and 125, would offer some form of 

express service between New York City and Niagara Falls. 

Page 3-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

3.1.2. Equipment

The number of new train sets, consisting of locomotive and passenger coaches, which would be 

required for each alternative, are indicated in the description of each alternative. The Empire 

Corridor does not support electric propulsion trains north of Croton-Harmon Station. At the same 

time, trains are required to operate with electric propulsion at Penn Station New York and through 

the East River Tunnels to the layover/servicing facilities at Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City, 

Queens. Therefore, the existing Empire Corridor is operated with specialized “dual mode” 

locomotives that can switch from electric to diesel operation (the present switchover occurs at 

about 40th Street in Manhattan, just north of Penn Station). The present Amtrak electric operation 

uses 700 volts (DC) third rail as an energy source at Penn Station and in the East River Tunnels. 

This third rail configuration is different than that of Metro-North, so Empire Corridor trains are 

unable to take advantage of the third rail between Spuyten-Duyvil and Croton-Harmon.

In addition to dual mode locomotives, longer-distance Empire Corridor trains (those to/from 

Montreal, Toronto, and Chicago) utilize conventional diesel locomotives west of Albany. Both the 

dual mode and conventional diesel locomotives are capable of 110 mph operation, and regularly 

achieve this speed on portions of the corridor between Hudson and Schenectady, but a long period 

of acceleration is required. Empire Corridor passenger coaches are single level unpowered coaches 

of the “Amfleet” type that date from the 1970s. These coaches, including some similar food 

service/business class cars, are approaching the end of their service life, but funding is not yet in 

place for their replacement. 

3.1.3. Physical Improvements

Each alternative consists of a program of improvements needed to implement the characteristics of 

the alternative (increased speed, improved reliability, increased capacity to support additional 

service, and passenger amenities). The types of physical improvements include new sidings, new 

dedicated passenger track, grade crossing improvements or elimination, advanced train control 

systems, and station improvements. The specific improvements included in the alternatives are 

based on an evaluation of potential capital projects developed for each segment of the corridor. 

Between New York City and Albany-Rensselaer, the section known as Empire Corridor South, 

improvements were identified in the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan.52 A 

series of improvements were identified in this plan along with a likely year of implementation, 

based on operational need, capital cost, available funding, and permitting/design status. 

In each case, a suite of capital improvements identified in the Hudson Line Transportation Plan are 

included for the Empire Corridor South segment, common to all Build Alternatives. These 

improvements are:

• Add second track between MPs 9 to 13 (including Spuyten Duyvil Movable Bridge); 

• Add new Tarrytown pocket track to support Metro-North turnbacks without delaying Empire 

Corridor Service;

52/ SYSTRA Engineering. Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan: Final Report, (Document No. M40801-11/95 18/STU-137). 

Prepared for Amtrak, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSXT, MTA Metro-North Railroad, NYSDOT. November 2005.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-5

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

• Add new signal system between Croton-Harmon and Poughkeepsie Stations (MPs 32.8 to 75) 

for additional operating capacity;

• Add third track (MP 53 to 63) to support Empire Corridor overtakes of Metro-North trains; 

• Add new track/siding at Poughkeepsie Station Track 3 to support higher operating speeds for 

Empire Corridor and Metro-North service; 

• Add new Poughkeepsie yard to eliminate station congestion and crossing conflicts north and 

south of the station;

• Add New CP82, New CP 99, New CP 136 – two-track universal interlockings to support 

enhanced reliability during maintenance activities; 

• Reconfigure Hudson Station to support simultaneous passenger boarding/alighting on both 

main tracks. 

Within the Base Alternative, the proposed Albany-Rensselaer Station fourth-track capacity 

improvements were included in the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan. 

In addition, along Empire Corridor South and the section west of Albany-Rensselaer Station, known 

as the Empire Corridor West, improvement projects not already included in the Base Alternative 

were identified. These include projects from:

• NYSDOT HSIPR grant and TIGER grant applications to the FRA,

• The New York State Rail Plan,

• Additional improvements identified during development of this EIS to improve speed and 

reliability and enhance service.

As with New York City to Albany-Rensselaer projects, these improvements were designated with a 

likely year of implementation, based on operational need, capital cost, available funding and 

permitting/design status. Priority was given to projects that provide relief to current delays 

experienced by passenger and/or freight trains. These delays were identified from the 2008 

Empire Corridor baseline simulation model, which has been calibrated against actual operations. 

2008 was used as the analysis year because it reflects realistic trends in rail congestion, prior to the 

economic downturn (and concomitant decline in freight shipping) in 2009. 

The scatter plot in Exhibit 3-2 shows locations of delays, along with their magnitude (the vertical 

axis represents duration of a single delay event, with the top of the chart representing a single delay 

lasting 4 1⁄2 hours). While passenger train delays (shown in red in the graph) were given highest 

priority for resolution, freight train delay (shown in blue) mitigation was also pursued. This is 

because delayed freight trains are likely to cause secondary delays to passenger trains due to 

congestion and loss of dispatching flexibility. 

Page 3-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-2—Empire Corridor West: 2008 Delays

The general elements of each alternative are summarized in Exhibit 3-3. All alternatives would 

include projects planned under the Base Alternative (designated BA in Exhibit 3-3). 

Exhibit 3-3—General Elements of the Alternatives

2008 Baseline Simulation Results - Empire Corridor West Delay Scatter Plot

0:00:00

0:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

2:30:00

3:00:00

3:30:00

4:00:00

4:30:00

440 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140

Milepost

Delay (HH:MM:SS)

Delays to Freight Delays to Passenger

BUF ALB Buffalo Depew Sta. 431.7 Rochester Station 371.0 Syracuse Station 291.4 Rome Station 251.3 Amsterdam Station 177.6 Albany - Rensselaer Sta. 142.1

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-7

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

3.2. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated From Further Study

Once the initial full range of possible alternatives (including maximum authorized speed, service, 

equipment, and physical improvements) was developed, the alternatives were subsequently 

screened according to the program purpose and need and associated objectives. NYSDOT applied a 

consistent set of performance measures (i.e., trip time, reliability, ridership, cost and revenue) to 

evaluate the range of possible alternatives. Certain alternatives were not advanced, based on an 

evaluation of these performance measures and comparative costs and environmental impacts. In 

addition, the performance of alternatives was compared against each other in the screening, and 

those that were not as effective in meeting the performance objectives were eliminated from 

further consideration.

The following describes the alternatives considered and eliminated from further study. 

3.2.1. 79 mph MAS Alternatives

Two 79 mph Maximum Authorized Speed (MAS) infrastructure alternatives were considered, 

incorporating various infrastructure improvements and operational enhancements, as alternatives 

that would maintain the existing FRA class of track/maintenance tolerances in the corridor and 

constrain associated infrastructure improvements to the existing right-of-way. The infrastructure 

alternatives focused on existing corridor trackage upgrades were, in turn, associated with two 

different service delivery levels—existing and an approximate doubling of Albany-Rensselaer to 

Buffalo service—to form Alternatives 79A and 79B, respectively. Infrastructure improvements 

would include passing sidings and signal and station improvements.

A third 79 mph MAS alternative, designated Alternative 79C, included a new dedicated single main 

track with some new dedicated double main track segments for train passing adjacent to the 

existing Empire Corridor alignment. The principal attribute of all three of the 79 mph alternatives 

is to provide greater reliability and fewer conflicts with existing and future CSXT freight 

movements along the Empire Corridor West (service characteristics along the Empire Corridor 

South between Albany-Rensselaer and New York Penn Station would remain unchanged). 

None of the 79 mph alternatives provide a significant operational or cost advantage over the 90 

mph alternatives, which are distinguished primarily by track structure improvements to support 

higher passenger train speeds where feasible within the existing corridor alignment. 

Simulations show that the New York to Niagara Falls trip time of Alternatives 79A/B is within 10 

minutes (out of a scheduled trip time of over 8 hours) of that of Alternative 90A. Service levels are 

identical. As a result, ridership projections are essentially the same between these alternatives. 

Similarly, Alternative 79C is characterized by essentially similar infrastructure as Alternative 90B, 

each with a dedicated third track over most of the corridor between Schenectady and Buffalo. 

Travel time differences between the two alternatives, based on detailed single train simulation, are 

less than 25 minutes (out of a trip time of more than 7 hours). Ridership projections for these two 

alternatives show less than 10 percent difference, reflecting identical service delivery and very 

similar trip times between the two alternatives. 

Page 3-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Because there was no substantive and positive differentiator of the 79 mph alternatives, they were 

not advanced for further consideration, as they did not meet the purpose and need. In each case, 

the comparable 90 mph alternative showed slightly superior trip time and ridership, resulting in it 

being retained over its slightly inferior 79 mph counterpart. 

3.2.2. Very High Speed (VHS) Alternatives

During the program scoping process in 2010, considerable interest was expressed by the public and 

other program stakeholders in the potential for higher speed alternatives. These included a 160 

mph alternative representing the practical upper limit of electrified dynamic tilt trains, such as the 

Amtrak Acela; and a 220 mph alternative representing the practical upper limit of high-speed rail 

operations seen in France, Germany, Spain, Japan, and China. In response to this, a range of higher 

speed alternatives was carefully examined according to the same metrics as the other alternatives. 

The dedicated right-of-way of the very high speed (VHS) alternatives would result in significant 

travel time savings (5:17 and 4:23 respectively for 160 mph MAS and 220 mph MAS), and 

commensurately higher estimated ridership (4.06 and 5.12 million respectively for 160 mph MAS 

and 220 mph MAS). 

These gains would come with significant service and economic costs. Attaining average speeds 

commensurate with the proposed investment would result in the likely diversion of the VHS service 

from all but four of the existing Empire Corridor West stations (i.e., Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, 

Rochester, and Buffalo Exchange would serve both the VHS and any continued “Legacy” Empire

Corridor passenger service). Between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City, there would be an 

entirely new station and market configuration, with construction of new right-of-way on a viaduct 

structure aligned with existing highways (assumed to be I-87/NY State Thruway). Physical and 

environmental characteristics of the existing Empire Corridor South would result in either 

extraordinary encroachments and impacts or a diversion so far to the east as to fall outside the 

Empire Corridor as defined. As such, synergies between existing commuter rail and high-speed rail 

services in the corridor would be lost under these alternatives. It would not be possible to utilize 

Metro-North to originate at a suburban station and connect to a high-speed rail train. 

At a corridor level, alternatives that are on alignments beyond the existing railroad corridor would 

be expected to have greater impacts to the natural and human environment than alternatives that 

follow the existing railroad corridor.

Although these alternatives would meet performance objectives, these improvements would come 

at a cost that is, by any current measure, infeasible at $27 billion (160 mph MAS) and $39 billion 

(220 mph MAS), calling into question the viability of improvements to the Empire Corridor that 

would go well above and beyond the current financial constraints. The projected capital cost of 

these alternatives is 30 to 43 times greater than the Amtrak intercity rail capital program for the 

entire United States for FY 2011, for example. 

For all of these reasons, NYSDOT eliminated the VHS alternatives from further study. More prudent 

and feasible alternatives exist which confer transportation benefits and that do not have substantial 

negative cost, property-taking, community, and environmental impacts. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-9

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

3.2.3. 125 mph MAS Alternative on Existing Empire Corridor

A higher speed alternative, 125 mph MAS, was evaluated west of Schenectady, and consideration 

was given of running this service on the existing Empire Corridor West. The differences in costs 

and benefits, between Alternative 125 on the existing Empire Corridor and Alternative 125 on a 

new corridor, favor the new-corridor alternative. Use of the existing corridor for Alternative 125 

would require additional infrastructure over and above the 110 Alternative: dual mode 

locomotives in electric mode would be operated along an electrified, completely grade-separated 

corridor that also includes (where possible) additional curve modifications. 

Today, portions of the existing corridor geometry can support 125 mph MAS. However, just like the 

110 and 90 mph Alternatives, there are portions of the corridor that could not be realigned to 

support 125 mph, so trains would have to slow down and speed up at each civil speed restriction. 

That is, the trip time (or average speed) for the new corridor 125 Alternative will be better than the 

trip time (or average speed) for an existing-corridor 125 Alternative.

NYSDOT has concluded that the incremental costs associated with upgrading the existing corridor 

from 110 mph MAS to 125 mph MAS are not justified by incremental improvement in trip time. The 

incremental approach will never achieve trip times close to a new corridor, although this does not 

include the purported acceleration improvements of electric traction equipment. Grade separating 

on the existing corridor adjacent to the existing freight tracks would be costly and complicated 

compared to constructing a new corridor.

3.3. Feasible Alternatives Advanced for Further Study 

Five alternatives were advanced for further study:

• Base Alternative: consists of eight capital improvement projects that have been funded under

FRA HSIPR and TIGER grants, in addition to normal maintenance.

• Alternative 90A: consists of 20 additional capital improvement projects previously identified

for potential FRA HSIPR and TIGER grant funding. This alternative would provide a MAS of 90

mph and limited express service and also includes the Base Alternative projects.

• Alternative 90B: consists of additional areas of third track and fourth track and station

improvements to accommodate a MAS of 90 mph. This alternative also incorporates the 20

Alternative 90A improvements, in addition to the eight Base Alternative projects.

• Alternative 110: consists of additional areas of third track and fourth track and station

improvements to accommodate a MAS of 110 mph. This alternative also incorporates the 20

Alternative 90A improvements, in addition to the eight Base Alternative projects.

• Alternative 125: maintains existing Amtrak Empire Service and incorporates express service

along a new, electrified, grade-separated corridor, providing a MAS of 125 mph between

Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo Exchange Street. The route overlaps with and serves station

tracks at Syracuse and Rochester, incorporating Base Alternative improvements and those

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch and the portions of

Empire Corridor West that overlap with the new route.

Page 3-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit 3-4 presents a corridor map of the Build Alternatives, and Exhibit 3-5, Exhibit 3-6, and 

Exhibit 3-7 summarize the characteristics and improvements for each alternative. 

These alternatives incorporate most of the improvements along Empire Corridor South outlined in 

the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan, with the exception of the Base Alternative 

(which only incorporates improvements identified at Albany-Rensselaer Station).

Track centers described in this EIS are based on conceptual-level design. These conceptual-level 

track centers represent prudent estimates of proposed conditions and have been used to establish 

this program’s potential impacts to adjacent property and environmental resources for each 

feasible Build Alternative. Specific track center design criteria and actual track centers proposed 

will be established during detailed design. Specific individual project track center design criteria, 

including any proposed design exceptions, will be developed considering factors including: the 

policies of the FRA, design guidelines and criteria of the railroad owners, and avoidance and 

minimization of impacts to adjacent property and environmental resources. 

For the 90 mph and 110 mph Alternatives, the new passenger tracks are located on the north side, 

when historically the passenger tracks were located to the south of the freight tracks. The primary 

reason for placing the new passenger tracks on the north side of the ROW is cost. If the new 

passenger tracks were constructed on the south side, generally on top of the existing two tracks, 

both the new passenger tracks and most of the two freight tracks would have to be rebuilt. By 

placing the new passenger tracks to the north, there is very little reconstruction required for the 

existing tracks, which become the almost exclusive freight tracks. At a cost of about $2.6 million per 

mile to remove and build two new freight tracks, that additional cost to the program would be 

significant. The new passenger tracks would also be added in the former location of the historic 

two-track system.

An offsetting cost of placing the new passenger tracks to the north is the need to construct 

additional crossovers, flyovers, and interlockings to allow freight trains running on the south side 

to crossover the new passenger mains to reach freight facilities on the north side. The resulting 

interconnectivity between the passenger and freight mains has the benefit of facilitating future 

maintenance operations for both modes and provides bypasses for each in the event of a service 

interruption such as equipment failure, derailment, etc.

Alternative 125 achieves a MAS of 125 mph by developing a new conceptual corridor alignment 

that minimizes horizontal curvature and elevation changes. The location of the new corridor was 

determined based on topography and avoidance of geographic information system (GIS)-mapped 

constraints, while remaining near the existing railroad corridor and providing connections with the 

existing Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo-Exchange Street Stations. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-4—Corridor Map of the Build Alternatives

Exhibit 3-5—Summary New/Improved Infrastructure needed for Alternatives

Improvement/Addition

Alternative

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Miles of new mainline track 36 54

243

double 

track

Miles of dedicated third track 10 283 283 10

Miles of dedicated fourth track 39 59

Miles of elevated track 56

Flyovers 3 2

Bridges (undergrade) 34 74 284(*) 284(*) 74(*)

Station Buildings 2 6 5 5 4

Station Facilities and Trackwork 4 6 11 11 9

Bridges (overhead) 90 90

Grade crossings 25 17 103 102 17

(*) Totals are for Empire Corridor West only.

Page 3-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-6—Summary of Track Improvements for Alternatives

Description Milepost Base 90A 90B 110 125

Add 4 miles of second track (Spuyten Duyvil and movable 

bridge)

9 – 13 X X X X

Add 1 mile of new track (Tarrytown Pocket Track) 23.8 - 25 X X X X

Add 10 miles of new third track (Metro-North) 53 - 63.5 X X X X

Replace Livingston Avenue Bridge 143 X X X X

Construct/rehab. 17 miles of second main track (Rensselaer to 

Schenectady Stations)

143.2 - 160.3 X X X X X

Add 10 miles of new main track (Selkirk/Mohawk Subdivisions) 169 - 178.5 X X X

Add 273 miles of new third track 159 - 432 X X

Add 9 miles of new fourth track (Selkirk/Mohawk Subdivisions) 170 - 179 X

Add 10 miles of new fourth track (Mohawk Subdivision) 174 - 184 X

Add 10 miles of new fourth track (Mohawk Subdivision) 204 - 214 X

Add 11 miles of new fourth track (Mohawk Subdivision) 218 - 229 X

Add 4 miles of new fourth track (Mohawk Subdivision) 235 - 239 X X

Add 13 miles of new fourth track (Mohawk Subdivision) 246 - 259 X

Add 8 miles of new fourth track (Rochester Subdivision) 301 - 309 X

Add 10 miles of new fourth track (Rochester Subdivision) 310 - 320 X

Add 1 mile of new fourth track (Rochester Subdivision) 373 - 374.3 X X

Add 9 miles of new third track & signal system (Rochester 

Subdivision)

373 - 382 X X X

Add 11 miles of new third track & signal system (Rochester 

Subdivision)

382 - 393 X X X

Add 8 miles of new fourth track (Rochester Subdivision) 375 - 383 X

Add 11 miles of new fourth track (Rochester Subdivision) 388 - 399 X

Grade Separated Flyover (Mohawk Subdivision) 279 X X

Grade Separated Flyover (Rochester Subdivision) 366 X X

Grade Separated Flyover (Rochester Subdivision) 427 X

Double Track - Add 5 miles of second track (Niagara 

Subdivision)

QDN2 to QDN7 X

Double track - Add 6 miles of second track (Niagara 

Subdivision) 

QDN17 - QDN22.8 X X X X

Upgrade 3 miles of existing track (Niagara Subdivision) QDN25 - QDN28 X X X X

20 miles of elevated Corridor between Albany and Schenectady QH142 - QH162 X

106 miles of double track on new alignment QH162 - QH268 X

15 miles of elevated corridor through and outside of Syracuse QH268 - QH283 X

62 miles of double track on new alignment QH283 – QH345 X

16 miles of elevated corridor through and outside of Rochester QH345 - QH361 X

48 miles of double track on new alignment QH361 – QH409 X

11 miles of track improvements at grade on existing alignment QH409 – QH420 X

5 miles of elevated corridor in and east of Buffalo QH420 - QH425 X

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-7—Summary of Station Improvements for Alternatives

Station & Improvements MP

Alternative

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Rhinecliff New high-level platform & canopy 89.2 X X X X

Hudson Reconfigure for simultaneous train stops on Tracks 1 and 2 114.5

X X X X

New Ferry Street Bridge/platform improvements X X X X

AlbanyRensselaer

New center island platform

142.1

X

Extension of platform & canopy X X X X X

New 4th track X X X X X

New connecting tracks X

Schenectady

New station building

159.8

X X X X X

New stairs & elevators to platforms X X X X X

ADA compliant platforms X X X X X

Weather protected connector corridor X X X X X

New 3rd track X X

Amsterdam

New station building

177.6

X X X

ADA compliant counter, restrooms, ramps, elevators X X X

New high-level platform X X X

Overhead pedestrian bridge X X

New 3rd track X X X

New 4th track X X

Utica

New center island platform

237.5

X X

Overhead pedestrian bridge X X

New 3rd & 4th tracks X X

Rome

New side platform

251.3

X

New center island platform X

Overhead pedestrian bridge X

New 3rd track X X

New 4th track X

Syracuse

New center island platform

291.4

X

Modify existing side platform X X

Overhead pedestrian bridge X

New 2nd track X X X X

New 3rd track X X X X

Modify interlockings & one new interlocking X X X

Upgrade existing 3rd track and signalization X

Upgrade existing 3rd track as fourth track X X X

Add crossovers & reconfigure signals X X X

Rehab/replace Park Street Bridge X X X X

Rochester

New station building

371

X X X X X

New high-level, center island platform X X X X X

Overhead pedestrian bridge X X X X X

New 3rd & 4th tracks X X X X X

New interlockings X X X X

BuffaloDepew

New station building

431.7

X X X

New high-level center island platform with canopy X X X

ADA compliant platform, ticket counter, restrooms, ramps, 

railings

X X X

New 3rd track X X X X

New 4th track X X X

Buffalo 

Exchange

Street

Relocated, new station building

QDN 1.9

X

ADA compliant connections to existing facilities X

New center island platform at new location X

New 3rd & 4th tracks at new location and connecting tracks X

Niagara Falls

Relocated, new station building

QDN 28.2

X X X X X

US Customs Border Protection (CBP) inspection facilities X X X X X

Covered high-level platform X X X X X

Upgrade existing track X X X X X

Page 3-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

3.3.1. Base Alternative

The Base Alternative is carried through the Tier 1 EIS as the basis to evaluate the cost and impacts 

of the program’s Build Alternatives in relation to the benefits gained by the public. The Base 

Alternative consists of eight limited rail improvement projects currently planned and funded to 

address previously identified capacity constraints. Train frequency will remain unchanged from 

the existing frequency. The key features of the Base Alternative are illustrated in Exhibit 3-8.

Exhibit 3-8—Base Alternative – Key Features

Note: Travel time between NYC and Niagara Falls presented in hours: minutes, based on westbound scheduled times.

The Base Alternative represents the future condition of the transportation network given 

committed rail, highway, bus, and airport improvement projects that are within the intercity travel 

market study area; i.e., the general geographic area served by the Empire Corridor. 

Sources of information used to develop the year 2035 Base Alternative include the following:

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

• New York State Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP);

• Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), financially constrained Long Range Transportation

Improvement Plans (LRTPs) and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs);

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast Summary, Fiscal Years 2010 –

2030;

• Various Airport Master Plans.

Planned improvements to the highway infrastructure (automobile and bus modes), airport 

infrastructure, and rail infrastructure were accounted for in forecasts of market demand and 

ridership as part of the Base Alternative (see Appendix E). The following is a description of planned 

improvements for passenger rail and freight rail service. 

Physical Improvements

The Base Alternative represents a continuation of existing Amtrak service with some operational 

and service improvements. Such improvements will consist of new rail vehicles, maintenance, 

rehabilitation and improvement to track capacity, signal work, highway-rail crossings, and 

passenger stations. Despite increasing ridership, the Base Alternative makes no provision for any 

improvement of rail service beyond what is already being operated and programmed by Amtrak, 

Metro-North, and/or NYSDOT. It assumes the continued operation of four daily round-trips of 

conventional speed Amtrak passenger service between Penn Station, New York City, and Niagara 

Falls on the Metro-North and CSXT owned alignment. Exhibit 3-5, Exhibit 3-6, and Exhibit 3-7

summarize the characteristics and improvements proposed for the Base Alternative. 

NYSDOT, Amtrak, Metro-North, and others currently have planned improvements to the New York 

State Empire Service that will improve freight and Amtrak operations at several locations. Eight 

currently planned projects, briefly described in Exhibit 3-9 and shown in Exhibit 3-10, form the 

Base Alternative passenger rail improvement projects. These projects are all being advanced 

independently and have received environmental clearances under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. FRA has awarded NYSDOT High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grants in the corridor, in 

addition to TIGER grants. The HSIPR grants awarded for Empire Service include partial funding 

towards this Tier 1 EIS and these projects that comprise the Base Alternative. These eight 

interrelated projects will provide final design and construction of: 

• Enhancements to stations in Albany-Rensselaer, Schenectady, Syracuse, Rochester, and Niagara

Falls;

• New tracks signaling, and communications;

• Interlockings; and

• Warning devices at grade crossings.

Page 3-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-9—Base Alternative Passenger Rail Improvement Projects

Project Name

(Milepost)

ARRA Grant 

Application Project Description Project Status(January 2013)

Hudson Subdivision 

Signal Reliability 

(MP 75.8 to 140)

ES-3

Replace old signal poles (for electric 

power to signals and communication 

lines) with underground cable 

between Poughkeepsie and Rensselaer 

Station. 

In construction

Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings Safety 

Improvements 

CSXT Hudson Line

(MP 75.8 to 140)

ES-1

Design and install grade crossing 

active warning device, roadway 

approach and/or pedestrian 

improvements to accommodate 

improved passenger rail operations 

between Poughkeepsie and AlbanyRensselaer.

In design

Albany-Rensselaer 

Station Fourth 

Track Capacity 

Improvements 

(MP 141 to 143)

ES-9

Add fourth track and extend platform 

to increase station capacity, operating 

speeds, train frequency, routing, and 

reduce delays.

In construction

Albany-Schenectady 

Double Track 

(MP 143.2 to 160.3)

ES-10

Design, construct and rehabilitate a 

second main track between the 

Rensselaer and Schenectady stations 

to increase capacity, reduce 

bottleneck, and improve operations in 

congested single track segment. 

In construction

Schenectady Station 

Renovation / 

Platform 

Improvements

(MP 159.8)

EW-01

Complete station reconstruction, ADAcompliant platform and station access, 

viaduct repairs and parking 

improvements.

In design

Syracuse Track 

Configuration and 

Signal 

Improvements 

(MP 287 to 291)

EW-6

Upgrade existing third track to reduce 

congestion, delays and interference 

between passenger and freight trains.

In design

Rochester Station 

Redevelopment / 

Operating 

Improvements

(MP 368 to 373)

EW-19

New station building

New high-level center island 

platforms, tracks/siding/interlocking 

to improve train operation efficiency, 

reduce congestion and improve 

passenger safety. 

In design

Niagara Falls 

Station – New 

Intermodal 

Transportation 

Center 

(MP QDN28.2)

EW-13

New station with improved location in 

downtown Niagara Falls, function, 

operation, connectivity, border 

security, less delays.

In construction

Source: NYSDOT ARRA Grant Applications: ES = Empire Corridor South; EW = Empire Corridor West 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-10—Base Alternative 

Page 3-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-10—Base Alternative (Maps 3 and 4)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-19

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-10—Base Alternative (Maps 5 and 6)

Page 3-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Under the Base Alternative, maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing freight rail system will 

continue. Rehabilitation will consist of improvements to track capacity, signalization, and highwayrail crossing improvements. Variations in times of departure and arrival, as well as train sizes and 

performance, are much greater in freight services than in passenger services. Freight service 

schedules and train sizes/performance for the program area are generally kept confidential by the 

operators, due to the competitive nature of freight railroading. Therefore, the unpredictable nature 

of freight service and the projections of increased freight traffic support the projections of 

decreasing efficiency in the existing program area. Increasing this efficiency may be accomplished 

by reestablishing track in the program area where the track has been removed or by building new 

alignment track and by coordinating the schedules of both freight and passenger trains diverted to 

the reestablished and/or new alignment tracks. 

Service Frequency Enhancement

The Base Alternative will maintain the existing 13 round trips per day between New York Penn 

Station and Albany-Rensselaer Station and the four round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer 

Station and Buffalo, with three trips continuing to Niagara Falls. 

Schedule Enhancement: Express Service and Station Stops

The Base Alternative will not add express service nor change the existing station stops made.

Equipment

The Base Alternative will not add new equipment.

Capital Costs

The estimated capital cost of the Base Alternative is $290 million. 

Trip Time

With the Base Alternative, trip time between New York Penn Station and Niagara Falls, based on 

westbound scheduled times, will be 9 hours and 6 minutes (9:06). 

On-Time Performance

The OTP for the Base Alternative along the Empire Corridor West will be 83 percent in the year 

2035.

Ridership

Ridership for the Base Alternative is projected to be 1.6 million persons in the year 2035. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Revenue

Annual revenue to the Base Alternative is projected to be $77 million.

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Operations and maintenance costs for the Base Alternative are estimated at approximately $103 

million per year.

Safety

The improvements included in the Base Alternative will result in an overall increase in safety for 

the traveling public due to the safety-enhancing projects proposed with this alternative. The 

increase in train ridership over existing conditions will translate to a decrease in highway traffic 

volumes. With fewer cars on the road this will, in turn, naturally result in fewer traffic accidents 

and other safety gains. Although there will be additional rail tracks built at some grade crossings, 

no new grade crossings will be added. Since the frequency of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

involving trains, especially with modern safety features at railroad grade crossings, is much lower 

than the frequency of accidents on highways, the overall number of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

will decrease due to the shift in travel from passenger cars to rail.

3.3.2. Alternative 90A

Alternative 90A, one of the two 90 mph alternatives, would use 90 miles per hour as the maximum 

authorized speed. Alternative 90A would include constructing new track in designated locations to 

meet higher track standards than those currently in use on the Empire Corridor, with in-cab 

signaling train control. This alternative would use current vehicle technology with the possibility of 

integrated trainsets. Alternative 90A would fall into the FRA’s “Regional” category.53 Alternative 

90A would add capacity and station improvements that consist of 20 separate, identified capital 

improvement projects, which are listed in Exhibit 3-12 in the “Physical Improvements” section. 

Alternative 90A improves service with the purchase of new train sets that would be used to 

increase the Empire Service to 16 daily round trip trains operating between New York City and 

Albany-Rensselaer Station and to eight daily round trips between Albany-Rensselaer Station and 

Buffalo, with seven continuing on to Niagara Falls. The key features of Alternative 90A are 

illustrated in Exhibit 3-11.

53/ FRA. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America: High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. April 2009. 

Page 3-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-23 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit 3-11—Alternative 90A – Key Features 

Note:		Travel	time	between	NYC	and	Niagara	Falls		presented	in	hours:	minutes,	based	on	westbound	scheduled	times.	

Physical Improvements

Alternative	90A	would	consist	of	20	additional	capacity	and	station	improvement	projects,	in	

addition	to	the	eight	projects	proposed	under	the	Base	Alternative.		The	assumption	in	this	Tier	1	

report	is	that	the	new	train	sets	and	equipment	added	in	Alternative	90A	would	be	staged	and	

maintained	at	existing	locations	and/or	facilities	along	the	corridor	and/or	at	spaces	gained	with	

the	addition	of	these	20	projects	comprising	Alternative	90A.		Exhibit	3‐5, Exhibit	3‐6,	and	Exhibit	

3‐7	summarize	the	characteristics	and	improvements	proposed	for	Alternative	90A.		

The	20	capital	improvement	projects	included	in	Alternative	90A	are	summarized	in	Exhibit	3‐12	

and	are	shown	in	Exhibit	3‐13.

	 	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-12—Alternative 90A Rail Improvement Projects

Project Name

(Milepost)

Project 

ID Project Description

Amtrak West Side Connection 

Spuyten Duyvil Second Track 

(MPs 9 to 13)

SRP-1 Increase capacity by adding a second track.

Metro-North – Tarrytown 

Pocket Track / Interlocking 

(MPs 23.8 to 25.0)

SRP-2

Increase capacity by adding a new track to improve speed, 

travel time, OTP, safety and reduce delay. Allows for increased 

future frequency. 

Metro-North New Signal System 

(CP 33 to CP 75)

(MPs 32.8 to 75.8)

ES-12 Signal system improvements to provide operating benefits in 

capacity, reliability and schedule recovery.

Metro-North – New Third Track 

(CP 53 to CP 63)

(MPs 53 to 63.5)

SRP-3

Increase capacity, reduce delay and improve schedule and 

operational reliability by providing the capability for freight 

trains to meet/pass.

Metro-North Poughkeepsie 

Yard / Storage Facility Track / 

Signals (CP 71 to CP 75)

(MPs 71 to 75.8)

ES-13

New track/siding and yard will help improve speed, travel 

time, OTP and safety and reduce delay. Allows for increased 

future frequency. 

Rhinecliff Station 

Improvements

(MP 89.2)

SRP-11 Improve reliability by adding high-level platforms to cut 

station dwell time in half.

Hudson Line Reliability 

Improvements New Control 

Points (CP 82, CP 99, CP 136) 

(MPs 82 to 136)

ES-05

Improve reliability by reducing spacing of interlockings, 

improving dispatching options to meet or pass trains, which 

will decrease delays.

Hudson Line Reliability 

Improvements Rock Slope 

Stabilization (10)

(MPs 105.3 to 130)

ES-04

Improve reliability by removing / stabilizing rock slopes at 10 

locations (5 locations between, MPs 105.3-106, one location at 

MP 119.5, and 4 locations at MPs 128.1-130), upgrading slide 

detector fences to improve safety, and reduce delays.

Hudson Station / Track 

Geometry Improvements

(MPs 114.5 to 115)

ES-14

Improve reliability through track realignment / new Ferry St. 

bridge, which will improve speed and safety for station access, 

ADA-compliant platform; eliminate delays by supporting two 

trains serving the station at the same time.

Livingston Avenue Bridge (LAB) 

Replacement Project

(MPs 143)

ES-15

Replace deficient moveable bridge to improve safety / 

reliability, travel time, remove speed / weight restrictions, 

increase capacity.

Mohawk Subdivision – New 

Main Track (CP 169 to CP 179)

(MPs 169 to 178.5)

EW14a

Increase capacity by adding a dedicated 110 mph passenger 

track to increase frequencies and provide additional capacity / 

reliability.

Mohawk Subdivision 

Congestion Relief (CP 175, CP 

239 & CP248) 

(MPs175 to 294)

EW-05

Improve travel times, operational capacity and safety by 

upgrading automatic block signals, control points and 

interlocking.

Amsterdam Station 

Improvements

(MP 177.6)

EIS-1

Improve reliability by constructing a new station with high 

level / double edge platform. Improve train operations and 

reduce dwell time. 

Belle Isle Capacity 

Improvements (CP 290 to CP 

293) Syracuse Station - Track 

Improvements 

(MPs 290 to 294)

EIS-6

Increase capacity by providing additional freight train queuing 

capability and ability for freight trains to operate between 

DeWitt and Belle Isle Pocket Yard without occupying existing 

main line. Add second station track at Syracuse Station and 

reconfigure signals at the station including one new 

Page 3-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-12—Alternative 90A Rail Improvement Projects

Project Name

(Milepost)

Project 

ID Project Description

interlocking.

Rochester Subdivision 

Reliability Third Main Track (CP 

373 to CP 382) 

(MPs 373 to 382)

EW-16 Increase capacity with third main track and signal system to 

improve speed, frequency, safety and reliability. 

Rochester Subdivision Third 

Main Track 

(MP 382 to 393)

EW-20 New third main track and signal system to improve speed, 

frequency, and reliability. 

Buffalo Depew Station 

Improvements 

(MPs 429.5 to 432.5)

EIS-10

Improve reliability by constructing new station with high level 

/ double edge platform. Improve train operations and reduce 

dwell time. 

Niagara Subdivision Double 

Track (CP 17 to CP 22) 

(MPs QDN17 to QDN23.8)

EW-17 Improve capacity by adding a second track.

Niagara Falls Maintenance 

Facility / Yard Improvements

(MP QDN27)

EW-18

Improve reliability by adding storage tracks and a 

maintenance building to provide shore power, potable water, 

inspection, cleaning and light repair capabilities. Decreases 

time to prepare for AM departures and eliminates delays from 

frozen equipment. Increases layover capacity.

Niagara Falls Track 

Improvements (MPs QDN25 to 

QDN28)

EIS-12 Improve capacity and reliability by upgrading an existing track

ES = Empire Corridor South; EW = Empire Corridor West; SRP = State Rail Plan; EIS – Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

Physical improvements would range from:

• Constructing new trackwork, 

• Reconfiguring, realigning and/or removing trackwork, 

• Shifting track to improve clearances, 

• Rehabilitating trackwork, 

• Improving signalization, 

• Installing new interlockings, 

• Reconfiguring removing or relocating interlockings, 

• Upgrading to higher speed turnouts, 

• Widening and/or rehabilitating the roadbed and bridges, 

• Improving stations and station platforms, 

• Improving at yards and maintenance facilities, 

• Installing pocket track, 

• Eliminating or improving grade crossings, and 

• Constructing civil support projects such as rock slope and right-of-way stabilization. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-25

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-13—Alternative 90A 

Page 3-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit 3-13—Alternative 90A (Maps 3 and 4)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-27

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-13—Alternative 90A (Maps 5 and 6)

Page 3-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

All physical improvements would be constructed within the existing ROW. No curves would be 

physically changed to increase speeds within the corridor. All improvements would be evaluated in 

greater detail as part of any future Tier 2 NEPA documentation. 

With Alternative 90A, Amtrak service would continue to operate within the existing railroad rightof-way, primarily along the same tracks on which it presently operates and in a few limited 

segments on new alignments. Based on the conceptual-level design, new mainline tracks would be 

spaced at 15-foot centers on tangent alignments and increased for curvature. Since some existing 

multiple track segments where the alternative would add a track or two are at less than 15 feet (at 

13 or 14 feet centers), increasing the distance between track centers to 15 feet or more may 

necessitate track shifts and/or isolated minor widening.

On the Hudson Line, number 32.7 turnouts would be used, where possible, to allow passenger 

trains to operate up to 80 mph through the diverging side of a turnout and through crossovers. 

This would improve run times by allowing the trains to remain at 79 mph MAS without having to 

decelerate and accelerate, approaching and leaving, slower speed turnouts (i.e.: to 45 mph through 

a number 20, or to 60 mph through a number 26.5).

Empire Corridor South

On the Empire Corridor South between New York City and Albany-Rensselaer, Alternative 90A 

includes the majority of the projects that were identified in the Hudson Line study. The Hudson 

Line projects are included because they provide benefits to reduce delay or improve reliability 

within the Hudson Subdivision. Those projects from the Hudson Line study not included in 

Alternative 90A either do not provide significant benefits or would be deferred to be constructed in 

later years. Only one project from the Hudson Line study is not included in either the Base 

Alternative or Alternative 90A:

• Stuyvesant Third Track and Interlocking Improvements (Project ES-06; Hudson Subdivision 

Reliability Third Main Track).

Alternative 90A improvements on the Empire Corridor South would include Project SRP-1 to 

reestablish a second track between CP 10 and CP 12 (across the Spuyten Duyvil). Alternative 90A 

would add a third main track at the following two locations: 

• CP 53 to CP 63 – Project SRP-3 would add a new third main track from CP 53 (south of Cold 

Spring Station) to CP 63 (north of New Hamburg Station) incorporating existing third track 

between, and modifying, CP 58 and CP 61 (at, and north of, Beacon Station); and

• CP 71 to CP 75 – Project ES-13 would reconfigure three mainline tracks, north of Poughkeepsie 

Station to CP 75 (to expand the yard) and extend a third track a mile south to CP 71.

Alternative 90A would provide various other capacity improvements, reconfiguring the mainline 

and expanding yards to accommodate train operations and facilities at the following locations:

• CP 24 to CP 25 – Project SRP-2 (mainline and yard improvements south of Tarrytown Station),

• CP 33 to CP 75 – Project ES-12 (signal system improvements from Croton-Harmon Station to 

Poughkeepsie Station), 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

• CP 71 to CP 75 – Project ES-13 (mainline and yard improvements at Poughkeepsie Station), 

and

• CP 114 to CP 115 – Project ES-14 (mainline and other improvements at Hudson Station). 

Facility enhancements such as track reconfigurations and platform additions would be provided at 

Rhinecliff, Hudson, Amsterdam, Syracuse, and Buffalo-Depew Stations, in addition to improvements 

from the Base Alternative at Albany-Rensselaer, Schenectady, Rochester, and Niagara Falls Stations 

(see Exhibit 3-7).

Empire Corridor West

On the Empire Corridor West, Alternative 90A would add significant features that include extending 

a new mainline third track at the following four locations:

• CP 169 to CP 179 – Project EW-14a, capacity improvements west of Schenectady at 

“Hoffmans”, just east of the junction with the Selkirk Branch in Glenville, to just west of 

Amsterdam Station; and, along the way, incorporating the existing siding at Kellogg IT (CP 173 

to CP 175); 

• CP 290 to CP 293 – Project EIS-6, Belle Isle capacity improvements at Syracuse Station; 

• CP 373 to CP 382 – Project EW-16, capacity improvements from just east of the Buffalo Wye to 

east of Route 259 (CP 373 to CP 380); incorporating existing track east of Route 259 to the West 

Shore connection (CP 380 to CP 382); and 

• CP 382 to CP 393 – Project EW-20 of Alternative 90A from the West Shore connection to eight 

miles east of Batavia Yard (CP 382 to CP 393). 

These extensions would incorporate several Base Alternative and new capital projects within 

Alternative 90A, including upgrades of several segments of existing track for continuity along the 

way.

On the Niagara Branch, Alternative 90A would provide a second main track at the following 

location:

• CP 17 to CP 22 – Project EW-17 would extend a second track between CP 17 (MP QDN17) and 

CP 22 (to MP QDN 23.8 at Tuscarora Road), connecting both leads of the “Lockport Subdivision 

Tuscarora Wye.” 

Alternative 90A would provide new station buildings and/or station facility enhancements at five 

station locations, where items such as new track, crossovers and grade crossings, and ADA safety 

improvements, high-level platforms, and in some cases, a completely new station would be 

constructed.

New station buildings would be constructed at Amsterdam and Buffalo-Depew in addition to the 

new station buildings at Schenectady, Rochester and Niagara Falls from the Base Alternative.

Page 3-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Maximum Authorized Speed (MAS)

The MAS for Alternative 90A would be 90 mph. The average running speed with Alternative 90A 

would increase to 57 mph, six miles per hour faster than in the Base Alternative. Amtrak passenger 

train speeds, both slower and faster, and limited locations along the corridor would remain 

unchanged in Alternative 90A. The MAS along the entire Empire Corridor is indicated on the 

“Alternative 90A Track Schematics,” Drawings 90A-1 to 90A-17 (refer to Appendix A).

With Alternative 90A along the Empire Corridor South, the MAS for Amtrak trains traveling north of 

Poughkeepsie (MP 74) to Hoffmans (at CP 169 near MP 170) would remain mostly at 75 to 95 mph 

with some exceptions. Relatively long stretches having higher MAS of 100 mph and 110 mph would 

remain at the following locations: 

• 110 mph would remain along two segments: between the Stuyvesant IT (MP 125), just east of 

the Shodack SD connection, and Albany-Rensselaer (MP 142);

• 110 mph east of Schenectady between MP 149, west of the West Albany Yard, and the Carman 

IT at CP 156 (MP 156); and

• 100 mph would remain for most of the way west of Schenectady Station between MP 161 and 

Hoffmans at CP 169 (near MP 170). 

Slower MAS would remain at the following locations along the Empire Corridor South:

• 50 mph at Hudson (MP 114), 

• 30 to 75 mph approaching Albany-Rensselaer Station and the West Albany Yard (MP 141 to MP 

145), and 

• 30 to 70 mph at Schenectady Station (MP 159 to MP 161).

With Alternative 90A along the Empire Corridor West, the MAS for passenger trains traveling west 

of Hoffmans at CP 169 (near MP 170) to west of Frontier Yard (MP 435), west of Buffalo-Depew 

Station would remain mostly at 70 and 79 mph with many short segments having slower speeds. 

Slower MAS would remain at the locations on the Empire Corridor West listed in Exhibit 3-14.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-31

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-14—Alternative 90A – Slower MAS

MP Location Description

193 Fonda 50 mph west of Amsterdam at for a mile at MP 183, just east of Fonda 

Yard, and at “Big Nose” curve 

199 Canajoharie 60 mph at CP 198, just west of Route 10

217 Little Falls 55 mph at Borroughs Team Track (between CP 215 and CP 218)

237 Utica 60 mph at Utica Station

285 - 287 Dewitt 40 mph at DeWitt Yard

287 - 294 Syracuse 55 and 60 mph passing Syracuse Station ( CP 293)

320 Savannah 40 mph at the “Floating Bridge” over the Seneca River

333 – 340 Lyons 55 to 70 mph passing Lyons Yard and approaching the Ontario 

Midland Railroad connection west of the yard

350 – 360 Macedon 65 mph for mile-long segments west of CP 349, and just west of the 

West Shore connection at CP 359

369 – 372 Rochester 55 to 45 mph passing Rochester Yard and Rochester Station

375 Rochester 45 mph at CP 375, just west of the Buffalo Wye

435 -

QDN28

Buffalo 

Exchange 

Street & 

Niagara Falls

40 and 60 mph west of Frontier Yard to Niagara Falls on the Niagara 

Branch

Service Frequency Enhancement

Alternative 90A would increase the frequency of Amtrak Empire Service. Amtrak service between 

New York City and Albany-Rensselaer Station would increase to 16 daily round trips, adding three 

trains, a 23 percent gain above the current 13 trips in the Base Alternative. Service between 

Albany-Rensselaer Station and Buffalo would increase to eight daily round trips, with seven 

continuing on to Niagara Falls, roughly doubling the current four-trip service to Buffalo in the Base 

Alternative.

Schedule Enhancement: Express Service and Station Stops

The improvements in Alternative 90A would add express service to the Amtrak Empire Service. 

Four new round trips would operate as an express service with station stops in Niagara Falls, 

Buffalo-Exchange Street, Buffalo-Depew, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany-Rensselaer and New York 

City (Penn Station).

Equipment

Alternative 90A would add six train sets to increase the frequency of Amtrak service.

Page 3-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Capital Costs

The estimated capital cost of Alternative 90A (projected to the 2015 program year) is $1.66 billion. 

The major cost components in Alternative 90A are the 33 capital improvement projects – the eight 

projects listed under the Base Alternative and the 25 additional capital improvement projects. The 

cost includes $60 million for Positive Train Control (PTC) and $208 million for additional train sets 

and equipment to increase the frequency of Amtrak rail service.

Trip Time

In Alternative 90A, the trip time between New York City and Niagara Falls, based on westbound 

scheduled times, would be 8 hours and 8 minutes (8:08). This would be 58 minutes shorter than 

the 9 hour and 6 minute (9:06) trip in the Base Alternative. 

On-Time Performance

The OTP for Alternative 90A along the Empire Corridor West would be 92.4 percent in the year 

2035.

Ridership

Alternative 90A is projected to increase annual ridership to 2.3 million persons in the year 2035. 

This would be a gain of 700,000 above the 1.6 million persons projected in 2035 for the Base 

Alternative. 

Revenue

Annual revenue for Alternative 90A is projected to be $119 million. 

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Operations and maintenance costs for Alternative 90A are estimated at approximately $156 million 

per year.

Safety

The improvements included in Alternative 90A would result in an overall increase in safety for the 

traveling public. The increase in train ridership would translate to a decrease in highway traffic 

volume. With fewer cars on the road this would, in turn, naturally result in fewer traffic accidents 

and other safety gains. Although there would be additional rail tracks built at some grade crossings, 

no new grade crossings would be added. Since the frequency of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

involving trains, especially with modern safety features at railroad grade crossings, is much lower 

than the frequency of accidents on highways, the overall number of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

would decrease due to the shift in travel from passenger cars to rail.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-33

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

3.3.3. Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B, one of the two 90 mph alternatives, uses 90 miles per hour as the maximum 

authorized speed, and consists of constructing new third and fourth mainline track and a new 

signal system to support the 90 mph speed. This alternative would use current vehicle technology 

with the possibility of integrated trainsets. Alternative 90B would fall into the FRA’s “Regional” 

category. Alternative 90B would improve service with the purchase of new train sets that would be 

used to increase the Empire Service to 17 daily round trip trains operating between New York City 

and Albany-Rensselaer and to eight daily round trips between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo, of 

which seven continue on to Niagara Falls. The key features of Alternative 90B are illustrated in 

Exhibit 3-15.

Physical Improvements

Alternative 90B would add a dedicated third main passenger track for approximately 273 miles 

between Schenectady (MP 159) and Buffalo-Depew (MP 432) (see Exhibit 3-16). It would also add

a fourth passenger track over a combined distance of approximately 39 miles in five separate 

Exhibit 3-15—Alternative 90B – Key Features

Note: Travel time between NYC and Niagara Falls presented in hours: minutes, based on westbound scheduled times.

Page 3-34 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

locations (MP 170-179, MP 204-214, MP 235-239, MP 301-309, MP 375-383). Based on the 

conceptual-level design, the third main passenger track would be located on the north side of the 

existing tracks, 15 feet from the existing mainline, and would generally occupy the portion of the 

existing railroad bed that historically contained two additional tracks. The fourth tracks would be 

located 15 feet further north of the dedicated third track and have been designated with a MAS of 

90 mph. Alternative 90B would also add double track to the Niagara Branch between MPs QDN 2 

and 7, west and north of the Buffalo Exchange Street Station.

Additional infrastructure would include:

• A new signal system to support the 90 mph MAS; 

• Bridge modifications; 

• Grade crossing modifications; 

• Culvert extensions; 

• Station improvements; and

• Three grade separated flyovers (MP 279, MP 366, and MP 427) where the third main passenger 

track passes over the existing freight tracks on an elevated structure, eliminating any potential 

conflicts with freight train movements. 

Grade crossing modifications would be required to accommodate new tracks. Upgrades to existing 

grade crossing warning devices would be determined in subsequent design phases and in any Tier 

2 documents.

Locations for potential maintenance service roads have been identified along the entire corridor 

between MP 159 and MP 432. Service roads provide necessary access to the railroad infrastructure 

for routine inspections, regular maintenance, and emergency situations. The specific need, size, and 

location of the service roads will be determined in subsequent design phases and Tier 2 studies. 

Some level of property acquisition would be required over substantial portions of Alternative 90B, 

not only for service road construction, but to accommodate the geometry and track centers of the 

third and fourth main tracks. 

Empire Corridor South

The improvements proposed with Alternative 90A on the Empire Corridor South also would be 

included in Alternative 90B. The additional improvements provided with Alternative 90B would all 

be located on the Empire Corridor West. 

Empire Corridor West

Exhibit 3-5, Exhibit 3-6, and Exhibit 3-7 summarize the characteristics and improvements proposed 

for Alternative 90B, which also include improvements proposed for Alternative 90A. For 

descriptive purposes, the major physical improvement features of Alternative 90B are presented in 

two segments along the Empire Corridor West. The first segment is between Schenectady and 

Syracuse (MPs 159-292), and the second is between Syracuse and Buffalo-Depew (MPs 292-432). 

Syracuse Station is the approximate center of the third track segment (133 miles from Schenectady 

to Syracuse and 140 miles from Syracuse to Buffalo-Depew). 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-35

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-16—Alternative 90B

Page 3-36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-16—Alternative 90B (Maps 3 and 4)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-37

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-16—Alternative 90B (Maps 5 and 6)

Page 3-38 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Schenectady to Syracuse (MP 159-292)

Within this segment, Alternative 90B would provide the major improvements shown in Exhibit 3-5,

Exhibit 3-6, and Exhibit 3-7, based on the conceptual design developed for this EIS.

Several areas would require larger track shifts to obtain an increase in operating speeds due to the 

existing geometry of the track: MP 168.3, MP 192.6, MP 198.5, MP 199.4, and MP 205.6.

Station improvements would be made at the following existing stations:

• Schenectady Station – As proposed for the Base Alternative, new station building, stairs and 

elevators to platforms, ADA compliant platform, and weather-protected corridor would be 

provided, and a new third track would be added with Alternative 90B. 

• Amsterdam Station – As proposed for Alternative 90A, a new station building, ADA compliant 

counter, restrooms, ramps, elevators would be provided, with a new high-level platform and 

new third track, but Alternative 90B would also add an overhead pedestrian bridge and new 

fourth track.

• Utica Station - New center island platform, overhead pedestrian bridge, and new third and 

fourth track would be provided.

• Rome Station – New side platform and new third track would be provided.

• Syracuse Station – As proposed for the Base Alternative, upgrades to the existing third track 

would be provided. As proposed for Alternative 90A, new second and third tracks, modified 

and one new interlocking, and added crossovers and reconfigured signals would be provided, in 

addition to rehabilitation/replacement of the Park Street Bridge. Alternative 90B would also 

modify the existing side platform.

Alternative 90B also would require realignment of several existing roadways that are adjacent to 

the railroad right-of-way over a total length of approximately four miles. Roadway realignments 

would be required along approximately 3.5 miles of Route 5 and other roadways that closely 

parallel the railroad between Schenectady County and Onondaga County. Most of these 

realignments would be minor and as little as approximately ten feet horizontally. Other roadway 

realignments would be more substantial, could range in excess of 50 feet horizontally, and could 

potentially involve property acquisition for the roadway relocation. Coordination with local 

authorities and FHWA, as appropriate, will occur in individual project planning and Tier 2 efforts.

Potential property acquisitions that could require acquisition of a structure in addition to open land 

include: MP 168.33 (Glenville, Schenectady County), MP 210.8 (Manheim, Herkimer County), MP 

215.6 (Little Falls, Herkimer County), MP 237.7 (Utica, Oneida County), and MP 286.4 (De Witt, 

Onondaga County).

Syracuse to Buffalo-Depew (MP 292-432) 

Within this segment, Alternative 90B would provide the major improvements shown in Exhibit 3-5, 

Exhibit 3-6, and Exhibit 3-7, based on the conceptual design developed for this EIS.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-39

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

No major track realignment areas would be needed to obtain an increase in operating speed.

Station improvement would be made at the following existing stations:

• Rochester Station – As proposed with the Base Alternative and Alternative 90A, new third and 

fourth tracks and interlockings will be provided, along with a new station building, new highlevel center island platform, and overhead pedestrian bridge.

• Buffalo-Depew Station – As proposed with Alternative 90A, a new station building, high level 

center island platform and ADA compliant platform, ticket counter, restrooms, ramps, and 

railings, along with a new third track would be provided. Alternative 90B would also add a new 

fourth track.

Realignment of several existing roadways that are adjacent to the railroad right-of-way would be 

required over a total length of approximately four tenths of one mile in Onondaga and Cayuga 

Counties. These realignments would be minor and as little as approximately ten feet horizontally. 

Potential property acquisitions that could require acquisition of a structure in addition to open land 

include: MP 341.1 (Arcadia, Wayne County) and MP 377.6 (Gates, Monroe County).

Maximum Authorized Speed

Alternative 90B would provide for an MAS of 90 mph between Albany, Buffalo and Niagara Falls.

Service Frequency Enhancement

Alternative 90B would increase the frequency of Amtrak Empire Service. Amtrak service between 

New York City, and Albany-Rensselaer would increase to 17 daily round trips, adding four trains, a 

30 percent gain above the current 13 trips in the Base Alternative. Service between Albany and 

Buffalo would increase to eight daily round trips, seven of which continue on to Niagara Falls, 

doubling the current four-trip service to Buffalo in the Base Alternative.

Schedule Enhancement: Express Service and Station Stops

No express service is proposed for Alternative 90B.

Equipment

Alternative 90B would add six train sets to increase the frequency of Amtrak service.

Capital Costs

The estimated capital cost of Alternative 90B is $5.58 billion.

Page 3-40 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Trip Time

With Alternative 90B, the trip time between New York City and Niagara Falls, based on westbound 

scheduled times, would be 7 hours and 36 minutes (7:36). This would be 32 minutes less than 

Alternative 90A’s trip time and one hour and 30 minutes (1:30) less than the Base Alternative’s trip 

time.

On-Time Performance

The OTP for Alternative 90B along the Empire Corridor West would be 95.4 percent in the year 

2035.

Ridership

Alternative 90B is projected to increase ridership to 2.6 million persons in the year 2035. This 

would be a gain of approximately 300,000 persons above projected ridership for Alternative 90A 

and a gain of approximately one million persons above projected ridership for the Base Alternative 

in 2035.

Revenue

Annual revenue for Alternative 90B is projected to be $139 million.

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Operations and maintenance costs for Alternative 90B are estimated at approximately $171 million 

per year.

Safety

The improvements included in Alternative 90B would result in an overall increase in safety for the 

traveling public. The increase in train ridership would translate to a decrease in highway traffic 

volume. With fewer cars on the road this would, in turn, naturally result in fewer traffic accidents 

and other safety gains. Although there would be additional rail tracks built at some grade crossings, 

no new grade crossings would be added. Since the frequency of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

involving trains, especially with modern safety features at railroad grade crossings, is much lower 

than the frequency of accidents on highways, the overall number of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

would decrease due to the shift in travel from passenger cars to rail.

3.3.4. Alternative 110 

Alternative 110 uses 110 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed and would construct 

new third and fourth main track and a new signal system to support the 110 mph speed. This 

alternative would use current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets. 

Alternative 110 would fall into the FRA’s “Regional” category. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-41

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Alternative 110 would improve service with the purchase of new train sets that would be used to 

increase the Empire Service to 17 daily round trip trains operating between New York City and 

Albany-Rensselaer. Eight daily round trips would be made between Albany and Buffalo, of which 

seven continue on to Niagara Falls. The key features of Alternative 110 are illustrated in Exhibit 

3-17.

Exhibit 3-17—Alternative 110 – Key Features

Note: Travel time between NYC and Niagara Falls presented in hours: minutes, based on westbound scheduled times.

Physical Improvements

Alternative 110 would add a dedicated third main passenger track between Schenectady (MP 159) 

and Buffalo-Depew (MP 432) (see Exhibit 3-18). It would also add a fourth passenger track in six 

locations (MP 174-184, MP 218-229, MP 235-239, MP 246-259, MP 310-320, and MP 388-399). 

Based on the conceptual-level design, the third main passenger track would be located on the north 

side of the existing tracks between MPs 159 and 366 and on the south side from MPs 366 to 432, 

generally 30 feet from the existing mainline and occupying a portion of the existing railroad bed 

that historically contained two additional tracks. Due to existing physical conditions that would 

Page 3-42 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

make it impractical to achieve the 30-foot separation, there would be sections of third main track 

located 15 feet from the existing track. In these instances, the MAS would be reduced to 90mph. 

The fourth tracks would be located between the dedicated third track and the existing track using 

15-foot track centers, with a designated MAS of 90 mph. 

Additional infrastructure would include:

• A new signal system to support the 110 mph MAS; 

• Bridge modifications; 

• Grade crossing modifications; 

• Culvert extensions; 

• Station improvements; and 

• Two grade separated flyovers (MPs 279 and MP 366) where the third main passenger track 

passes over the existing freight tracks on an elevated structure, eliminating any potential 

conflicts with freight train movements. 

Grade crossing modifications would be required to accommodate new tracks. Upgrades to existing 

grade crossing warning devices would be determined in subsequent design phases and in any Tier 

2 documents.

Alternative 110 would provide two grade-separated flyovers, and it would be considerably 

different than Alternative 90B west of the Rochester Station. West of Rochester, Alternative 110 

alignment would continue on the south side of the corridor. The dedicated third passenger track 

would run over the existing Track 2 alignment, and the existing freight tracks would be relocated to 

the north to maintain the desired track centers. This configuration would also eliminate an 

expensive grade separated flyover. 

Locations for potential maintenance service roads have been identified along the entire corridor 

between MP 159 and MP 432. The specific need, size, and location of the service roads would be 

determined in subsequent design phases and Tier 2 studies. Some level of property acquisition 

would be required over substantial portions of Alternative 110, not only for service road 

construction, but to accommodate the geometry and track centers of the third and fourth main 

tracks. 

Empire Corridor South

The improvements proposed with Alternative 90A on the Empire Corridor South also would be 

included in Alternative 110. The additional improvements provided with Alternative 110 would all 

be located on the Empire Corridor West. 

Empire Corridor West

Exhibit 3-5, Exhibit 3-6, and Exhibit 3-7 summarize the characteristics and improvements proposed 

for Alternative 110, which also include improvements proposed for Alternative 90A. For 

descriptive purposes, the major physical improvement features of Alternative 110 are presented in 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-43

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-18—Alternative 110 

Page 3-44 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-18—Alternative 110 (Maps 3 and 4)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-45

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-18—Alternative 110 (Maps 5 and 6)

Page 3-46 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

two segments along the corridor. The first segment is between Schenectady and Syracuse (MPs 

159-292), and the second is between Syracuse and Buffalo-Depew (MPs 292-432). Syracuse Station 

is the approximate center of the third track segment (133 miles from Schenectady to Syracuse and 

140 miles from Syracuse to Buffalo-Depew). 

Schenectady to Syracuse (MP 159-292)

Several areas would require larger track shifts to obtain an increase in operating speeds due to the 

existing geometry of the track: MP 168.4, MP 182.0, MP 192.7, MP 198.3, MP 199.3, MP 205.5, MP 

211.6, and MP 221.8.

Station improvements would be made at the following existing stations:

• Schenectady Station – As proposed for the Base Alternative, new station building at the 

existing station, stairs and elevators to platforms, ADA compliant platform, and weatherprotected corridor would be provided, and a new third track would be added as with 

Alternative 90B.

• Amsterdam Station – As proposed for Alternative 90A, a new station building at or near the 

existing Amtrak station, ADA compliant counter, restrooms, ramps, elevators would be 

provided, with a new high-level platform and new third track, and as with Alternative 90B an 

overhead pedestrian bridge and new fourth track would be added.

• Utica Station – As proposed for Alternative 90B, a new center island platform, overhead 

pedestrian bridge, and new third and fourth track would be provided.

• Rome Station – As proposed for Alternative 90B, a new third track would be provided, and a 

new fourth track, new center island platform, and overhead pedestrian bridge would be added 

under Alternative 110.

• Syracuse Station – As proposed for the Base Alternative, upgrades to the existing third track 

would be provided. As proposed for Alternative 90A, new second and third tracks, modified 

and one new interlocking, and added crossovers and reconfigured signals would be provided, in 

addition to rehabilitation/replacement of the Park Street Bridge. As proposed for Alternative 

90B, a modified existing side platform would be provided.

Alternative 110 also would require realignment of several existing roadways that are adjacent to 

the railroad right-of-way over a total length of approximately seven miles. The roadway 

realignments would be required where Route 5 and other roadways closely adjoin the railroad in 

the section between Schenectady and Onondaga counties. Most of these realignments would be 

minor and as little as approximately ten feet horizontally. Other roadway realignments would be 

more substantial, could range in excess of 50 feet horizontally, and could potentially involve 

property acquisition for the roadway relocation. Coordination with local authorities and FHWA, as 

appropriate, will occur in individual project planning and Tier 2 efforts.

Potential property acquisitions that could require acquisition of a structure in addition to open land 

include the following locations: MP 168.3 (Glenville, Schenectady County), MP 184.6 (Mohawk, 

Montgomery County), MP 186.3 (Mohawk, Montgomery County), MP 191.7 (Mohawk, Montgomery 

County), MP 198.1 (Palatine, Montgomery County), MP 200.6 (Palatine, Montgomery County), MP 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-47

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

207.5 (St. Johnsville, Montgomery County), MP 210.8 (Manheim, Herkimer County), MP 215.1 

(Manheim, Herkimer County), MP 226.9 (Herkimer, Herkimer County), MP 228.0 (Schuyler, 

Herkimer County), MP 230.8 (Schuyler, Herkimer County), MP 237.2 (Utica, Oneida County), and 

MP 286.4 (De Witt, Onondaga County).

Syracuse to Buffalo-Depew (MP 292-432) 

One area would require larger track shifts to obtain an increase in operating speeds due to the 

existing geometry of the track, MP 355.2.

Station improvements would be made at the following existing stations:

• Rochester Station – As proposed with the Base Alternative, new third and fourth tracks and 

interlockings will be provided, along with a new station building, new high-level center island 

platform, and overhead pedestrian bridge.

• Buffalo-Depew Station – As proposed with Alternative 90A, a new station building, high level 

center island platform and ADA compliant platform, ticket counter, restrooms, ramps, and 

railings, along with new third track, would be provided. As proposed with Alternative 90B, a 

new fourth track would be provided.

Alternative 110 also would require realignment of several existing roadways in Onondaga and 

Cayuga counties that are adjacent to the railroad right-of-way over a total length of approximately 

four tenths of one mile. These realignments would be minor and as little as approximately ten feet 

horizontally. 

Potential property acquisitions that could require acquisition of a structure in addition to open land 

include: MP 341.1 (Arcadia, Wayne County), MP 361.4 (Perinton, Monroe County), MP 377.7 

(Gates, Monroe County), and MP 389.1 (Bergen, Genesee County).

Maximum Authorized Speed

Alternative 110 would provide for an MAS of 110 mph between Albany, Buffalo and Niagara Falls.

Service Frequency Enhancement

Alternative 110 would increase the frequency of Amtrak Empire Service. Amtrak service between 

New York City and Albany would increase to 17 daily round trips, adding four trains, a 30 percent 

gain above the current 13 trips in the Base Alternative. Service between Albany and Buffalo would

increase to eight daily round trips, of which seven would continue on to Niagara Falls, doubling the 

current four-trip service to Buffalo in the Base Alternative.

Schedule Enhancement: Express Service and Station Stops

No express service is proposed for Alternative 110. 

Page 3-48 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Equipment

Alternative 110 would add six train sets to increase the frequency of passenger rail service.

Capital Costs

The estimated capital cost of Alternative 110 is $6.25 billion.

Trip Time

With Alternative 110, the trip time between New York City and Niagara Falls, based on westbound 

scheduled times, would be 7 hours and 22 minutes (7:22). This would be one hour and 44 minutes 

(1:44) less than the Base Alternative’s trip time.

On-Time Performance

The OTP for Alternative 110 along the Empire Corridor West would be 94.9 percent in the year 

2035.

Ridership

Alternative 110 is projected to increase ridership to 2.8 million persons in the year 2035. This 

would be a gain of approximately 1.2 million persons above projected ridership for the Base 

Alternative in 2035.

Revenue

Annual revenue for Alternative 110 is projected to be $149 million.

Operation & Maintenance Costs

Operations and maintenance costs for Alternative 110 are estimated at approximately $173 million 

per year.

Safety

The improvements included in Alternative 110 would result in an overall increase in safety for the 

traveling public. The increase in train ridership would translate to a decrease in highway traffic 

volume. With fewer cars on the road this would, in turn, naturally result in fewer traffic accidents 

and other safety gains. Although there would be additional rail tracks built at some grade crossings, 

no new grade crossings would be added. Since the frequency of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

involving trains, especially with modern safety features at railroad grade crossings, is much lower 

than the frequency of accidents on highways, the overall number of accidents, injuries, and deaths 

would decrease due to the shift in travel from passenger cars to rail.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-49

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

3.3.5. Alternative 125 

Alternative 125 uses 125 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed and would be the first 

speed threshold for electrically powered trains. Alternative 125 would construct an entirely new 

two-track grade-separated electrified corridor (with overhead catenary wire for power delivery to 

the trains) between Albany and Buffalo dedicated to high-speed passenger rail service and would 

fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category. The route corridor is approximately 283 miles in length 

from Albany/Rensselaer Station to Buffalo Exchange Street Station. 

The current Empire Corridor use of dual mode (electric and diesel) locomotives would continue in 

Alternative 125, although the electric propulsion type (AC) would differ from that used at present 

(DC) on the tracks surrounding Penn Station New York. Trains would operate in diesel mode on the 

existing Hudson Line Corridor between Albany/Rensselaer Station and a point just north of Penn 

Station New York, where they would switch over to the existing AC-powered overhead catenary for 

operation to the station and servicing facility. 

Within the densely-developed areas around Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, the new 

corridor would roughly parallel the existing corridor on a combination of new and existing right-ofway to provide express service (15 round trips) to existing stations in these cities. The existing four 

daily round trips to Buffalo (of which three continue on to Niagara Falls) would be maintained on 

the existing right-of-way. Between Albany and Buffalo, the new corridor would follow an alignment 

designed to balance the competing demands of operating speed, cost and environmental impacts. 

The key features of Alternative 125 are illustrated in Exhibit 3-19. The travel times assume that 

one station in a new central location would be provided in Buffalo. For the purposes of this Draft 

EIS, the existing Buffalo-Depew and Exchange Street stations are assumed to be in place (although 

the Alternative 125 express service would bypass Buffalo-Depew Station). Station sites would be 

further defined in Tier 2. The average speeds reflect the 125 mph express service speeds (including 

Hudson Line/Empire Corridor South) and do not include speeds for the existing Amtrak service 

that would also be maintained. The weighted average speed of both services would be 63 mph, but 

only Schenectady, Amsterdam, Rome, and Utica passengers (a small percentage of Empire Corridor 

passengers) will not experience high-speed dedicated service. Required infrastructure includes 

roadbed, track, viaducts and bridges, cuts and embankments, access roads, railroad systems, 

maintenance facilities, and other support facilities. Exhibit 3-5, Exhibit 3-6, and Exhibit 3-7

summarize the characteristics and improvements proposed for Alternative 125, which also include 

improvements proposed for Alternative 90A that extend along the Hudson Line or Niagara Branch. 

Physical Improvements

Empire Corridor South

The improvements proposed with Alternative 90A on the Empire Corridor South also would be 

included in Alternative 125. Due to the developed nature of the corridor along the Hudson Line, it 

is assumed that the maximum speeds along this section would be 110 mph and that the 

improvements proposed are the same as for Alternative 90A, 90B, and 110. The additional 

improvements provided with Alternative 125 would all be in the Empire Corridor West segment. 

Page 3-50 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-19—Alternative 125 – Key Features

Note: Travel time between NYC and Niagara Falls presented in hours: minutes, based on express service, westbound scheduled times. 

The average speed for the “Regional Service” (or existing Amtrak service) that would be maintained on the existing Empire Corridor 

would be 53 mph, with a weighted average of 63 mph for both services. Travel time for regional service would be 8:40.

Empire Corridor West

Approximately 83 percent of Alternative 125 would be along new electrified corridor (with 

overhead catenary) between Buffalo and Albany (see Exhibit 3-20). Exhibit 3-21 summarizes the 

existing and new corridor lengths for Alternative 125. Alternative 125 extends north to AlbanyRensselaer Station, then doubles back to a new river crossing across the Hudson River, following 

the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) and largely bypassing the cities of Albany and 

Schenectady. Alternative 125 would also include new right-of-way on a more direct route between 

Rensselaer County and a point five miles east of the Buffalo-Depew Station, merging back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15-mile and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of double track on 

new corridor alignment along three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to 

Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. The alignment would be located within the existing Empire 

Corridor right-of-way through the cities of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 concept is a new grade separated (from highway and other railroads) corridor for 

the exclusive use of high-speed passenger trains. To achieve the grade separation, it is assumed 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-51

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-20—Alternative 125

Page 3-52 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-20—Alternative 125 (Maps 3 and 4)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-53

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-20—Alternative 125 (Maps 5 and 6)

Page 3-54 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-21—Alternative 125 – Existing and New Corridor Mileage and Elevated Tracks

Total Route 

Length 

(Miles)

Along “New” 

Corridor

(Miles)

Along Existing 

Empire Corridor

(Miles)

Buffalo to Albany: 283 236 47

 Buffalo to Rochester 70 48 22

Elevated Track 11 11

 Rochester to Syracuse 77 62 15

Elevated Track 15 15

 Syracuse to Albany 136 126 10

Elevated Track 30 30

that a certain amount of viaduct is required in the urban areas. Where Alternative 125 extends 

through Rensselaer and Albany Counties along the New York State Thruway and through the 

downtown areas of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo (approaching Buffalo Exchange Street Station), 

the tracks would be elevated, and Alternative 125 would directly service the existing stations 

serving these cities. The remainder of the track would be largely at grade through primarily rural 

or undeveloped lands, and no new stations along the new alignment sections are proposed.

It is assumed that grade separation will be achieved by elevating the tracks above the existing grade 

on a combination embankment and elevated structures. The structurally elevated structures are 

assumed to be supported by columns or viaduct. A total of 56 miles of elevated track is assumed to 

be required based on Tier 1 analysis, although further design and definition would be part of Tier 2 

assessments. 

For the purposes of evaluating potential impacts, operating characteristics, and costs of Alternative 

125, a potential corridor on new right-of-way was identified between the sections of the route 

where it would follow the existing Empire Corridor to connect with existing stations at AlbanyRensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. This corridor was located using available Geographic 

Information System (GIS) mapping of environmental constraints, topography, and aerial 

photography. If Alternative 125 is selected for further consideration in Tier 2, this corridor location 

would be further refined to avoid community and environmental resources to a greater extent.

Alternative 125 extends north to Albany-Rensselaer Station, then doubles back to a new river 

crossing across the Hudson River, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) and largely 

bypassing the cities of Albany and Schenectady. Alternative 125 would also include new right-ofway on a more direct route between Rensselaer County and a point five miles east of the BuffaloDepew Station, merging back with the Empire Corridor over two 15-mile and 16-mile segments 

centered on Syracuse and Rochester, respectively. Alternative 125 would involve construction of a 

total of 236 miles of double-track on new alignment along three different segments: Rensselaer to 

Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. The alignment would be located within 

the existing Empire Corridor right-of-way through the cities of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-55

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Alternative 125 concept is a new grade separated (from highway and other railroads) corridor for 

the exclusive use of high-speed passenger trains. To achieve the grade separation, it is assumed 

that a certain amount of viaduct is required in the urban areas. Where Alternative 125 extends 

through Rensselaer and Albany Counties along the New York State Thruway and through the 

downtown areas of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo (approaching Buffalo Exchange Street Station), 

the tracks would be elevated and Alternative 125 would directly service the existing stations 

serving these cities. The remainder of the track would be largely at grade through primarily rural 

or undeveloped lands, and no new stations along the new alignment sections are proposed.

It is assumed that grade separation will be achieved by elevating the tracks above the existing grade 

on a combination embankment and elevated structures. The elevated structures are assumed to be 

supported by columns or viaduct. A total of 57 miles of elevated track is assumed to be required 

based on Tier 1 analysis, although further design and definition would be part of Tier 2 

assessments. 

Alternative 125 incorporates the improvements proposed for Alternative 90A, 90B, and 110 along 

Empire Corridor South. However, along Empire Corridor West, existing Empire Service to all 

existing stations will be maintained, but express service along Alternative 125 would only service 

Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo Exchange Street stations. Not all of the station 

improvements proposed for Alternatives 90B and 110 would be implemented on stations bypassed 

by the express service. The station improvements that would be provided along Empire Corridor 

West for Alternative 125 are described below, and Exhibit 3-22 shows the Alternative 90A 

improvements that would be included in Alternative 125. 

• Schenectady Station – This station would be bypassed by Alternative 125 express service, 

although existing service would be maintained. As proposed for the Base, new station building, 

stairs and elevators to platforms, ADA compliant platform, and weather-protected corridor 

would be provided.

• Amsterdam Station – This station would be bypassed by Alternative 125 express service, 

although existing service would be maintained. No improvements are proposed for Amsterdam 

Station, which would be reconstructed under Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110. 

• Utica and Rome Stations – These stations would be bypassed by Alternative 125 express 

service, although existing service would be maintained. No improvements are proposed for 

Alternative 125 at Utica and Rome stations, which would be provided with new platform, 

tracks, and overhead pedestrian bridge for Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110. 

• Syracuse Station – As proposed for Alternative 90A, new second and third tracks would be 

provided, in addition to rehabilitation/replacement of the Park Street Bridge. Alternative 125 

would add a new center island platform and an overhead pedestrian bridge.

• Rochester Station – As proposed with the Base Alternative, new third and fourth tracks, new 

station building, new high-level center island platform, and an overhead pedestrian bridge

would also be provided under Alternative 125.

Page 3-56 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 3-22—Alternative 90A Rail Improvements included in Alternative 125

Project Name

(Milepost)

Project 

ID Project Description “Necessary” for 125 Project

Amtrak West Side 

Connection Spuyten 

Duyvil Second Track 

(MPs 9 to 13)

SRP-1 Increase capacity by adding a second track. Yes

Metro-North –

Tarrytown Pocket 

Track / Interlocking 

(MPs 23.8 to 25.0)

SRP-2

Increase capacity by adding a new track to improve speed, 

travel time, OTP, safety and reduce delay. Allows for 

increased future frequency. 

Yes

Metro-North New 

Signal System (CP 33 to 

CP 75)

(MPs 32.8 to 75.8)

ES-12 Signal system improvements to provide operating benefits 

in capacity, reliability and schedule recovery. Yes

Metro-North – New 

Third Track (CP 53 to 

CP 63)

(MPs 53 to 63.5)

SRP-3

Increase capacity, reduce delay and improve schedule and 

operational reliability by providing the capability for freight 

trains to meet/pass.

Yes

Metro-North 

Poughkeepsie Yard / 

Storage Facility Track / 

Signals (CP 71 to CP 75)

(MPs 71 to 75.8)

ES-13

New track/siding and yard will help improve speed, travel 

time, OTP and safety and reduce delay. Allows for increased 

future frequency. 

Yes

Rhinecliff Station 

Improvements

(MP 89.2)

SRP-11 Improve reliability by adding high-level platforms to cut 

station dwell time in half. Yes

Hudson Line Reliability 

Improvements New 

Control Points (CP 82, 

CP 99, CP 136) 

(MPs 82 to 136)

ES-05

Improve reliability by reducing spacing of interlockings, 

improving dispatching options to meet or pass trains, which 

will decrease delays.

Yes

Hudson Line Reliability 

Improvements Rock 

Slope Stabilization (10)

(MPs 105.3 to 130)

ES-04

Improve reliability by removing / stabilizing rock slopes at 

10 locations (5 locations between, MPs 105.3-106, one 

location at MP 119.5, and 4 locations at MPs 128.1-130), 

upgrading slide detector fences to improve safety, and 

reduce delays.

Yes

Hudson Station / Track 

Geometry 

Improvements

(MPs 114.5 to 115)

ES-14

Improve reliability through track realignment / new Ferry 

St. bridge, which will improve speed and safety for station 

access, ADA-compliant platform; eliminate delays by 

supporting two trains serving the station at the same time.

Yes

Livingston Avenue 

Bridge (LAB) 

Replacement Project

(MPs 143)

ES-15

Replace deficient moveable bridge to improve safety / 

reliability, travel time, remove speed / weight restrictions, 

increase capacity.

Yes

Mohawk Subdivision –

New Main Track (CP 

169 to CP 179)

(MPs 169 to 178.5)

EW14a

Increase capacity by adding a dedicated 110 mph passenger 

track to increase frequencies and provide additional 

capacity / reliability.

No

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-57

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Exhibit 3-22—Alternative 90A Rail Improvements included in Alternative 125

Project Name

(Milepost)

Project 

ID Project Description “Necessary” for 125 Project

Mohawk Subdivision 

Congestion Relief (CP 

175, CP 239 & CP248) 

(MPs175 to 294)

EW-05

Improve travel times, operational capacity and safety by 

upgrading automatic block signals, control points and 

interlocking.

No

Amsterdam Station 

Improvements

(MP 177.6)

EIS-1

Improve reliability by constructing a new station with high 

level / double edge platform. Improve train operations and 

reduce dwell time. 

No

Belle Isle Capacity 

Improvements (CP 290 

to CP 293) Syracuse 

Station - Track 

Improvements 

(MPs 290 to 294)

EIS-6

Increase capacity by providing additional freight train 

queuing capability and ability for freight trains to operate 

between DeWitt and Belle Isle Pocket Yard without 

occupying existing main line. Add second station track at 

Syracuse Station and reconfigure signals at the station 

including one new interlocking.

No

Station work is 

required for 125 

but would be 

different work than 

described here

Rochester Subdivision 

Reliability Third Main 

Track (CP 373 to CP 

382) 

(MPs 373 to 382)

EW-16 Increase capacity with third main track and signal system to 

improve speed, frequency, safety and reliability. 

Station work is 

required for 125 

but would be 

different work than 

described here

Rochester Subdivision 

Third Main Track 

(MP 382 to 393)

EW-20 New third main track and signal system to improve speed, 

frequency, and reliability. No

Buffalo Depew Station 

Improvements 

(MPs 429.5 to 432.5)

EIS-10

Improve reliability by constructing new station with high 

level / double edge platform. Improve train operations and 

reduce dwell time. 

No

Niagara Subdivision 

Double Track (CP 17 to 

CP 22) 

(MPs QDN17 to 

QDN23.8)

EW-17 Improve capacity by adding a second track. Yes

Niagara Falls 

Maintenance Facility / 

Yard Improvements

(MP QDN27)

EW-18

Improve reliability by adding storage tracks and a 

maintenance building to provide shore power, potable 

water, inspection, cleaning and light repair capabilities. 

Decreases time to prepare for AM departures and eliminates 

delays from frozen equipment. Increases layover capacity.

Yes

Niagara Falls Track 

Improvements (MPs 

QDN25 to QDN28)

EIS-12 Improve capacity and reliability by upgrading an existing 

track Yes

ES = Empire Corridor South; EW = Empire Corridor West; SRP = State Rail Plan; EIS – Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

Page 3-58 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Buffalo-Depew Station – This station would be bypassed by Alternative 125 express service, 

although existing service would be maintained. As proposed with Alternative 90A, new third 

track would be provided and as proposed with Alternative 90B, new fourth track would be 

provided.

• Buffalo Exchange Street Station – Buffalo Exchange Street station will be relocated and a new 

station building provided for Alternative 125. In addition, ADA compliant connections to 

existing facilities, a new center island platform at a new location, and new third and fourth 

tracks and connecting tracks would be provided. 

Maximum Authorized Speed

Alternative 125 would provide for an MAS of 125 mph between Albany/Rensselaer and Buffalo.

Service Frequency Enhancements

Alternative 125 would provide for a total of 19 daily round trips between Albany-Rensselaer 

Station and Buffalo, compared to the existing four daily round trips to Buffalo, of which six would 

continue to Niagara Falls. Four daily round trips would be retained on the existing corridor (of 

which three continue to Niagara Falls) and 15 daily round trips that will run express between major 

cities (Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo) would be added on the new corridor.

Service Enhancements

The Alternative 125 corridor includes two intermediate stops between Albany-Rensselaer and 

Buffalo at Syracuse and Rochester. Distances between stops would range from 135 miles between 

Albany/Rensselaer and Syracuse, to 70 miles between Syracuse and Rochester, and between 

Rochester and Buffalo. 

Equipment

Alternative 125 would add 17 dual mode locomotive-powered trainsets to increase the frequency 

of passenger rail service. All Empire Corridor Alternatives require continued use of dual mode 

locomotives. Alternative 125 will use a different type of dual mode locomotive, similar to those 

recently introduced on the NJ TRANSIT and AMT (Montreal) commuter rail networks. Rather than 

700 volts (DC) third rail power, Alternative 125 will use a diesel/AC overhead contact wire dual 

mode capability. The overhead wire is presently energized at 25 hertz (Hz) 11 kilovolts (kV) within 

the Penn Station/East River Tunnel area and assumed to be energized at the more modern 

standard of 60 Hz 25 kV in the proposed electrified segment of the alternative. As with the NJ 

TRANSIT operation, the Alternative 125 dual mode locomotives would be capable of operating with 

either of the AC frequency/voltage combinations.

Capital Costs

The estimated capital cost of Alternative 125 is $14.71 billion.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-59

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives

Trip Time

With Alternative 125, the trip time between New York City and Niagara Falls, based on westbound 

scheduled times, would be 6 hours and 2 minutes (6:02). This would be 3 hours and 4 minutes 

(3:04) less than the Base Alternative’s trip time.

On-Time Performance

The OTP for Alternative 125 along the Empire Corridor West would be 100 percent in the year 

2035. This reflects a virtual 100 percent OTP on the new Alternative 125 corridor and an 83 

percent OTP on the existing (regional) corridor.

Ridership

Alternative 125 is projected to increase ridership to 4.3 million persons in the year 2035. This 

would be almost 169 percent more than the projected ridership for the Base Alternative.

Revenue

Annual revenue to Alternative 125 is projected to be $245 million.

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Operations and maintenance costs for Alternative 125 are estimated at approximately $304 million 

per year. 

Safety

As a sealed corridor with all grade-separated crossings, travel safety would be maximized with 

Alternative 125. The increase in train ridership would translate to a decrease in highway traffic 

volume. With fewer cars on the road this would, in turn, naturally result in fewer traffic accidents 

and other safety gains. Although there would be additional train frequency, the frequency of 

accidents, injuries, and deaths involving trains, is much lower than the frequency of accidents on 

highways, therefore the overall number of accidents, injuries, and deaths would decrease due to the 

shift in travel from passenger cars to rail.

Page 3-60 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4. Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.1. Introduction

This chapter describes existing social, economic, and environmental conditions in the study area 

and describes the potential for impacts for alternatives under consideration (including the Base 

Alternative, Alternatives 90A, 90B, 110, and 125). The impacts assessment performed is largely a 

qualitative assessment based on the Tier 1 concepts developed. This analysis in Tier 1 will be 

further refined in Tier 2, after an alternative has been selected. (Although the singular term 

“analysis” is used throughout this chapter, it is understood there likely will be several Tier 2 

analyses, including those within future EISs, Environmental Assessments (EAs), or Categorical 

Exclusions (CEs) as appropriate, for individual projects within the Empire Corridor Program.) The 

Tier 2 analysis is described in the “Future Analysis” sections. Potential mitigation measures to be 

identified in Tier 2 are also addressed in this chapter. A map of the program corridor is shown in 

Exhibit 4-1.

Exhibit 4-1—Corridor Map of the Build Alternatives

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-1

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

This chapter characterizes the affected environment within study areas that have been identified 

for each alternative under consideration. The discussion on the existing environment describes 

existing conditions associated with the natural environment, land features, air quality, noise, visual 

conditions, and cultural and community resources within the Empire Corridor program area. The 

study areas for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Draft EIS are defined as follows:

• The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of 

the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor and Niagara Branch.54,55

• The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125, which follows portions of the 

existing Empire Corridor and also bypasses the railroad along new alignment, and is 450 miles 

long.56

Specific study areas for the natural and physical environment, and cultural resources vary from 600 

feet to a mile in width depending on the resource, and are centered about the existing or 

prospective rail line centerlines. Specific study areas for the human environment, noise, and air 

quality are generally more expansive, and are defined by regions of influence in which a resource 

may potentially have program-related impacts. Regions of influence for human resources account 

for factors such as community sizes, geographical and political boundaries, and census boundaries. 

These human resources include social and economic factors, community resources, and land use 

planning. Specific study areas are further discussed in the methodology subsection of each 

particular impact area, and a detailed description of existing conditions, including maps, is 

presented in Appendix G.

4.2. Land Use

4.2.1. Regulatory Context

The Federal Railroad Administration’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Federal 

Register, Vol. 64, No. 101, May 26, 1999) requires consideration of potential environmental impacts 

on existing and future land use. The NYSDOT Project Development Manual also requires 

consideration of potential impacts on land use and local master plans and private development 

plans. 

4.2.2. Methodology

Existing land uses were characterized for study areas within 300 feet of the corridor centerline for 

all alternatives. Land uses were identified using U.S. Geological Survey land use land cover 

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. Land uses were characterized by county and for 

54/ The 90/110 Study Area (existing Empire Corridor) includes an approximate 1-mile extension of the Niagara Branch, terminating at 

the new Niagara Falls Intermodal Facility. 55/ Mileposts for the existing Empire Corridor, as designated by the railroads, skip a mile where the Hudson Line, originating at Grand 

Central Station, merges with the Empire Corridor at the Manhattan-Bronx county line near Spuyten Duyvil Station.

56/ Mileposts for the 125 Study Area, beginning at Albany-Rensselaer Station and proceeding west to Buffalo, are referenced with the 

designation QH preceding the number. Mileposts for the Niagara Branch are referenced with the designation QDN preceding the 

number.

Page 4-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

the nine major cities within the study area. Land uses surrounding the sixteen existing Amtrak 

station sites were also identified through review of Google aerial photography and mapping.

Future land use plans were accounted for using regional level consistency reviews of existing LongRange Transportation Plans and Comprehensive Plans at the Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) or county level. This plan review included the major metropolitan areas along the study 

area. Major initiatives for local planning and future private development within major business 

districts are addressed in general terms (given the size and scope of the program) in Appendix G 

under Section 3.3, “Business Districts.” 

4.2.3. Existing Conditions

The 600-foot wide study area for Alternatives 90 and 110 consist of twenty counties and intersects 

97 cities/towns and 45 villages. The 600-foot wide study area for Alternative 125 includes portions 

of twenty-one counties, 92 cities/towns, and 24 villages. There are eight major metropolitan areas 

that are within the catchment area of nine MPOs, as described in Section 2.2.1. The land uses in the 

study area are described below from south to north (New York City to Rensselaer County) and east 

to west (Albany County to Buffalo/Niagara Falls) and are shown in Exhibit G-1 of Appendix G, Land 

Cover Map (Sheets 1 through 3). Appendix G presents a detailed overview of the land uses in each 

county, which are summarized in Exhibit 4-2 and Exhibit 4-3, as well as the major cities and station 

sites. 

Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South segment, from New York City to Rensselaer, extends 142 miles and in 

many locations closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River. The most urbanized segment of 

the study area extends roughly 10 miles through New York City from Pennsylvania Station 

(southern terminus of the Empire Corridor) in Manhattan to the northern border of the City of 

Yonkers in Westchester County, as shown in the land use totals in Exhibit 4-2. In New York City, 

the county boundaries coincide with the boroughs. The study area extends through Manhattan 

(New York County) and the Bronx (Bronx County). The Hudson Valley Region north from New 

York City includes Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, and Columbia Counties, which extend along 

the east side of the Hudson River and become less urbanized to the north, as shown in Exhibit 4-2. 

The Capital District includes Rensselaer County on the northern end of this program segment. The 

location of the rail line in close proximity to the river’s edge in many locations is reflected by the 

predominance of surface waters, wetlands, and undeveloped forest area in many locations where 

the river bank is undeveloped or consists of parkland. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The 322-mile-long Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch, with the exception of the metropolitan 

areas within and surrounding the major cities, has a rural agricultural character, as shown in the 

land use totals in Exhibit 4-2. This route extends through the Capital District (Albany and 

Schenectady Counties); the rural counties of Montgomery, Herkimer, Oneida; the Central New 

York Region (the counties of Madison, Cayuga, and Onondaga); the Finger Lakes Region 

(Onondaga, Cayuga, Wayne, and Monroe Counties), and the Buffalo-Niagara Region (Erie and 

Niagara Counties). As shown in Exhibit 4-2, the urbanized areas are concentrated around the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-3

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-2—Land Use/Land Cover in the 90/110 Study Area (in acres) Residential Commercial Services Industrial Transportation/ Utilities Industrial and Commercial Mixed Urban Land Agricultural Rangeland Forest Land

Surface Water

Wetlands

Barren Land

Totals

New York 19 91 14 135 0 453 0 0 0 4 0 0 716

Bronx 33 14 0 3 0 43 0 0 0 97 0 0 190

Westchester 369 118 344 180 0 231 0 0 225 821 0 0 2,288

Putnam 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 417 34 0 678

Dutchess 125 32 137 60 42 101 125 0 1,252 1,290 107 44 3,315

Columbia 346 55 0 0 0 0 417 0 1,067 104 31 125 2,145

Rensselaer 196 39 33 29 0 0 276 0 346 51 0 0 970

Albany 52 72 219 83 33 24 2 0 327 12 0 31 855

Schenectady 333 46 80 86 0 39 147 0 311 11 0 12 1,065

Schoharie n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Montgomery 288 225 0 179 0 112 962 174 852 44 0 97 2,933

Herkimer 63 316 0 33 0 26 584 143 530 126 0 17 1,838

Oneida 135 149 46 204 0 0 832 221 171 0 323 0 2,081

Madison 32 42 0 0 0 11 263 110 504 0 21 26 1,009

Onondaga 63 156 333 299 0 292 343 0 569 18 164 38 2,275

Cayuga 0 0 0 23 0 0 641 0 106 9 54 0 833

Wayne 9 54 36 0 0 4 1,638 0 658 0 284 16 2,699

Monroe 226 342 257 145 20 159 833 0 142 0 92 33 2,249

Genesee 113 18 29 5 0 34 1,818 0 78 15 65 1 2,176

Erie 424 317 550 136 0 90 630 0 146 0 28 22 2,343

Niagara 126 70 29 117 95 92 479 0 0 0 0 41 1,049

Totals 2,958 2,161 2,107 1,717 190 1,711 9,990 648 7,500 3,019 1,203 503 33,707

Source: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Mapping Program.

cities of Albany (Albany County), Schenectady (Schenectady County), Utica (Oneida County), 

Syracuse (Onondaga County), Rochester (Monroe County), Buffalo (Erie County), and Niagara Falls 

(Niagara County). 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The 125 Study Area, extending 308 miles from the Rensselaer County line to Niagara Falls, takes a 

more direct route than Empire Corridor West through rural and agricultural areas between 

Rensselaer County and Buffalo. The 125 Study Area bypasses several of the major metropolitan 

areas and existing stations along the Empire Corridor West, with the exception of two 16-mile 

sections roughly centered on the Syracuse and Rochester metropolitan areas. The more rural 

nature of the corridor is evident in the land use totals shown in Exhibit 4-3.

Page 4-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-3—Land Use/Land Cover in the 125 Study Area (in acres) Residential Commercial Services Industrial Transportation/ Utilities Industrial and Commercial Mixed Urban Land Agricultural Rangeland

Forest Land

Surface Water

Wetlands

Barren Land

Totals

New York 19 91 14 135 0 453 0 0 0 4 0 0 716

Bronx 33 14 0 3 0 43 0 0 0 97 0 0 190

Westchester 369 118 344 180 0 231 0 0 225 821 0 0 2,288

Putnam 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 417 34 0 678

Dutchess 125 32 137 60 42 101 125 0 1,252 1,290 107 44 3,315

Columbia 346 55 0 0 0 0 417 0 1,067 104 31 125 2,145

Rensselaer 179 22 17 29 0 0 276 0 346 47 0 0 916

Albany 99 20 37 675 0 0 19 0 123 12 0 34 1,019

Schenectady 83 47 0 127 0 18 632 8 332 0 0 0 1,247

Schoharie 0 0 0 0 0 53 214 0 188 0 0 0 455

Montgomery 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,094 0 383 0 68 0 1,545

Herkimer 27 0 0 0 0 31 788 32 969 0 0 0 1,847

Oneida 67 5 0 6 0 27 923 0 501 0 75 0 1,604

Madison 25 15 0 0 0 25 684 53 244 0 0 16 1,062

Onondaga 54 156 354 306 0 306 811 0 787 22 252 37 3,085

Cayuga 0 0 0 23 0 1 1,177 0 300 15 121 0 1,637

Wayne 28 54 36 0 0 37 3,501 0 1,206 0 400 16 5,278

Monroe 368 342 266 147 21 179 1,409 0 342 0 92 33 3,199

Genesee 113 18 29 5 0 34 3,640 0 201 15 251 32 4,338

Erie 459 324 550 142 0 104 1,165 0 283 24 65 71 3,187

Niagara 125 70 29 117 95 92 479 0 0 0 0 41 1,048

Totals 2,525 1,388 1,813 1,955 158 1,735 17,354 93 8,965 2,868 1,496 449 40,799

Source: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Mapping Program.

Consistency with Regional/Local Plans

A review of existing comprehensive plans and long-range transportation plans prepared by state, 

county and local governmental agencies was conducted for their consistency with the proposed 

high-speed rail improvements program planned for the Empire Corridor. Many of these plans 

indicate support for improved use and access to rail service including the introduction of highspeed rail, improvements to the rail corridor, and revitalizing station areas and fostering 

transportation-friendly land uses. In some cases, these plans advocate the relocation of existing rail 

facilities to a more accessible location.

Other common rail transportation objectives cited in the plans that support the development of 

high-speed rail include the following:

• Strengthen alternative modes of transportation,

• Improve intercity passenger rail service,

• Improve on-time performance for intercity passenger rail service,

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-5

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Expand ridership for intercity passenger rail service,

• Multi-modal transportation connections, and

• Economic development.

Exhibit G-2 in Appendix G identifies those state, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), county 

and city plans that were reviewed and addresses the extent to which transit improvements and the 

introduction of high-speed rail are referenced. The two state rail/multimodal plans endorse and 

program improvements for improved intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail improvements in 

the Empire Corridor. Although many, but not all of the plans, specifically reference support for 

high-speed rail or Empire Corridor improvements, the MPO, county, and city plans reviewed 

overwhelmingly support improvements in intercity passenger rail service, and generally endorse 

improvements in transit and/or station access. 

4.2.4. Environmental Consequences

This section describes potential land use impacts of the alternatives, based on review of aerial 

photography and GIS land use mapping. Review of aerial mapping and plans indicates that the Base 

Alternative and Alternative 90A would have no direct impacts to properties outside of the right-ofway. These alternatives would largely involve work within the right-of-way, with tracks being 

added in the location of the former track beds or existing access roads. Alternative 90B would 

involve greater property impacts in isolated areas, with addition of third track and limited areas of 

fourth track. The proposed work for these alternatives will include the addition of track, as well as 

maintenance service roads in selected areas. Alternative 110 would have isolated impacts to 

properties in more locations, with construction of third and fourth tracks extending further outside 

of the right-of-way in more locations. The third tracks would be offset 30 feet, and 20 additional 

miles of fourth track would be added. Alternative 125 would involve greater impacts to existing 

land use as it extends 236 miles as a sealed corridor on new alignment through primarily rural 

areas. Exhibit 4-2 and Exhibit 4-3 provide acreages of types of affected land use within the 90/110 

and 125 study areas. This assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and will be further 

refined in Tier 2 as the project development process is further advanced. Tier 2 will involve efforts 

to avoid property encroachments as design is advanced.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

against and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative 

will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in 

track and station infrastructure. Because proposed work with this alternative is anticipated to be 

located entirely within the right-of-way, no direct land use impacts are anticipated. 

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. It is 

anticipated that work could be contained within the right-of-way, and no direct land use impacts 

are anticipated. 

Page 4-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed, and no additional land use impacts are anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 90B would directly affect properties in nine areas in six counties, as described below. 

The proposed third track and maintenance service road at the connection to the Selkirk Branch at 

MP 168.3 in Schenectady County may impact the edges of agricultural/industrial property adjacent 

to Route 5. The proposed improvements may pass through the wooded edges of this area, although 

no impacts to buildings are anticipated.

Just west of Amsterdam Station in Montgomery County, the third track and maintenance access 

road may impact wooded property that houses utility structures between the Mohawk River and 

Route 5 at approximate MP 177.7. No buildings or aboveground structures will be impacted with 

Alternative 90B at this location. Continuing west, just beyond this area at approximate MP 177.8, 

the third track and maintenance access road would encroach upon Route 5 where the land between 

the Mohawk River and Route 5 narrows, potentially impacting the roadway alignment. This 

realignment may impact an adjoining street to the north in a residential neighborhood. At MP 

192.3, the maintenance access road and track may extend into the wooded edge of a residential 

property and to the west would cross and realign Route 5 where the railroad and road are near the 

river, affecting wooded property. Near MP 200.7, the new maintenance access road and new 

passenger track and associated right-of-way may be close enough to affect industrial buildings. 

In Herkimer County, the maintenance service road adjacent to the new third and fourth track may 

impact a farm building at approximate MP 210.8 on land closely adjoining both the railroad and 

Route 5 to the north.

In Wayne County, the addition of a maintenance surface road may impact an industrial building 

structure at approximate MP 341.1, west of Route 88, where a new track siding is proposed. 

Just west of Interstate 390 in Monroe County, at approximate MP 374.7, the proposed third track 

and maintenance access road extends beyond the right-of-way and may impact industrial property 

to the north.

In Erie County, the addition of a fourth track to the south of the existing track at Buffalo-Depew 

Station (MPs 431 to 432) will impact the existing station building as well as additional industrial 

land west of the station to where the proposed third track meets the proposed No. 20 turnout.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-7 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

The double track along the Niagara Branch between QDN MPs 2 to 7 is anticipated to be performed 

within the right-of-way and is not expected to result in land use impacts.

Alternative 110

Alternative 110 would directly affect approximately 53 areas in eight counties, which are described 

in the following section. With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased 

frequency of service for Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, 

with 273 miles of exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be 

further offset 30 feet, and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher 

speeds. Alternative 110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed and no additional land use impacts are anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, the proposed third track alignment from MP 164.5 to MP 165.4 in 

Schenectady County may impact a residential building and property and other undeveloped lands 

currently landlocked between the railroad and Barhydt Road and will also cross each end of 

Barhydt Road. Where the realigned third track would merge with the existing railroad at 

approximate MP 165.2, it would cross front yards and driveways of several residential properties at 

the intersection of Barhydt Road and Rector Road. The proposed third track and maintenance 

service road at the connection to the Selkirk Branch at MP 168.3 in Schenectady County may impact 

paved and unpaved parking/storage areas and the wooded edge of agricultural industrial property 

adjacent to Route 5.

In Montgomery County, the addition of a maintenance service road and additional passenger tracks 

or freight tracks may require realignments of Route 5 and other adjoining roadways. Realignments 

of Route 5 for the maintenance service road and proposed third track may impact residential 

properties at MP 172.6 and on Chapman Drive north of Route 5 (MP 173.6). Construction of the 

maintenance service road, third track, and an additional fourth track may require realignment of 

Route 5/Route 67 less than a mile east of the Amsterdam Station, impacting several businesses and 

residences. At MP 178.5, realignment of Route 5 may affect several residential, commercial, and 

other properties adjoining Route 5, including Old Fort Johnson, a historic site, and a fire station. At 

MP 179.8, realignment of Route 5 could affect the wooded edges of a private country club property, 

and will also affect frontages north of the highway including residences at the following locations: 

MPs 185, 187.3, 189, 196.4, and 196.9. The construction of the third and fourth tracks and a 

maintenance service road from approximate MP 181.5 to MP 182.3 in Montgomery County may 

impact undeveloped forested land at the edge of agricultural fields. Realignment of County 

Highway 26/Mohawk Drive to accommodate the service road and two additional passenger tracks 

may affect silos and the edges of properties near MP 183.2. 

At MP 184.5, the maintenance access road and relocated freight track would affect a building 

adjoining the tracks, south of Route 5. Beginning within the village of Fonda (Town of Mohawk), 

Page 4-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

from MP 185.9 and continuing west for three blocks to beyond the village boundaries to MP 187.8, 

this same type of work outside the right-of-way may impact a number of closely spaced 

buildings/properties, including several community facilities and businesses (gas station and other 

automotive services, restaurants, and stores), and residential properties in addition to roadway 

impacts. At the western end of the village, at approximate MP 186.7, the maintenance service road 

may impact Route 5 where it curves close to the railroad. The maintenance access road and 

relocated freight track may impact adjoining property for an automotive services facility just west 

of this, at MP186.8. 

To the west, in Montgomery County, the proposed work areas north of the track that might extend 

outside of the right-of-way would largely impact undeveloped or agricultural lands landlocked 

between the railroad and Route 5. At MP 191.7, one or more buildings may be impacted by the 

maintenance service road. From MP 192.5 to MP 192.8, the proposed third track and the service 

access road extends into the wooded portion of a residential property and may affect Route 5 at the 

curve where the land narrows at the Mohawk River. The relocation of Route 5 may indirectly 

impact farmland at this and other areas of Montgomery and Herkimer Counties although in most 

locations, no buildings impacts are anticipated. However, at MP 196.7, the relocation of Route 5 

may impact farmland property and buildings on the opposite side of the roadway. The construction 

of the service access road and the proposed third track extends beyond the right-of-way at 

approximate MP 197.7, near a commercial/garage building in the village of Palatine Bridge (across 

Bridge Street from the Palatine Bridge Village Offices), and MP 198, which may affect a structure on 

the back of a property. The construction of the third track and a maintenance service road from MP 

198.2 to MP 198.6 may impact wooded property closely adjoining buildings on the same access 

drive as the historic Frey House. South of the village of Nelliston in the Town of Palatine, where the 

railroad closely adjoins the Mohawk River, the service access road and the proposed third track 

may impact an industrial structure at MP 200.6. Between MPs 205.4 to 206 in Montgomery County 

(Town of St. Johnsville), track realignment of the new/relocated freight tracks and the third track 

veers off the existing corridor and may impact primarily wooded lands bordering agricultural 

fields.

In Herkimer County, the third track and maintenance service road may impact wooded lands 

bordering agricultural fields between MPs 210 to 213. A farm structure at MP 210.8 that is closely 

bracketed by the railroad and Route 5 to the north may be impacted. West of MP 215 to the county 

line at approximate MP 235, there are many areas where the maintenance service road and in some 

locations, the proposed third track, may extend outside of the right-of-way. Between MPs 226.4 

and 227, the construction access road and third and fourth tracks may impact the back side of 

several properties that front on Route 5, including residences and several industrial or commercial 

uses. At MP 228, a retail building closely bracketed by the railroad and Route 5 may be affected by 

the service road. Several residences may also be displaced at MP 230.9, and a realignment of Route 

5 between MPs 230.4 and 230.8 may affect several residential frontages. 

Just east of Utica Station in Oneida County, the proposed third track may impact a building at 

approximate MP 237.3. In Monroe County, the proposed third track and service access road may 

impact several buildings where construction extends beyond the right-of-way. These potential 

building impacts are at approximate MPs 360.6 and 361.2. In Genesee County, the proposed third 

track may impact a building at approximate MP 402.4. The existing Amtrak Buffalo-Depew Station 

will also be impacted with the construction of the new third track.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-9

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River, but this is located within undeveloped and partially cleared land. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. Alternative 125 would require acquisition of two to three thousand acres of land for 

creation of a sealed corridor between Albany and Buffalo. The potential impacts associated with 

the potential corridor that was identified during Tier 1 are addressed in the following section. If 

Alternative 125 is advanced for further consideration during Tier 2, efforts to further minimize 

community impacts and landtakings would be made as the design is further refined. 

This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a point 8.5 miles 

east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 extends through urban areas in Albany and Schenectady 

Counties over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) over most 

of this distance. In Albany County, as Alternative 125 crosses through industrial land, adjoining but 

not displacing, storage tanks, then follows the New York State Thruway at the outskirts of the City 

of Albany, land use impacts and displacements would be minimized through Albany County. 

Passing west into Schenectady County, Alternative 125 continues to follow the New York State 

Thruway through more urbanized areas in Rotterdam, crossing through several residential 

neighborhoods where it deviates from the Thruway. The remainder of Alternative 125 extends 

through primarily undeveloped or very sparsely developed areas that consist primarily of forested 

and agricultural lands. Where Alternative 125 parallels U.S. Route 20 to the south, properties 

(primarily residential) fronting on the highway may be affected. 

In the east end of Schoharie County, where Alternative 125 passes through more developed areas in 

the village of Esperance, it may involve displacements primarily of residences where it extends 

south of Route 20. Where Alternative 125 crosses U.S. Route 20 and Route 30A/162 in the Hamlet 

of Sloansville, it may displace residences or businesses along these highways. The remainder of 

Alternative 125 in Schoharie County crosses through primarily undeveloped and sparsely 

developed land that consist primarily of agricultural and forestland. 

In Montgomery County, Alternative 125 crosses through predominantly forested and agricultural 

land. Although there may be displacements where Alternative 125 crosses roads, property 

Page 4-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

displacements would be minimized by the sparsely developed nature of the county. Alternative 

125 crosses through a country club.

In Herkimer County, Alternative 125 crosses through predominantly forested and agricultural 

lands. Alternative 125 would also have the potential for displacements where it crosses roadways, 

on which development is generally more closely clustered than for Montgomery County along 

sections of highways, such as Route 168 and Route 28, and County Road 125. In particular, 

Alternative 125 passes through more urbanized areas within the Town of German Flatts, south of 

the village of Herkimer, between Routes 51 and County Road 14. This section would involve 

crossing three residential streets, and displacements are minimized by crossing a public golf course 

in this area. The remainder of the county along Alternative 125 is sparsely developed.

In Oneida County, Alternative 125 crosses through predominantly agricultural land or undeveloped 

or forested lands. Alternative 125 extends through the southern outskirts of the Town of New 

Hartford, a suburb of the City of the Utica to the north, and passes north of the Village of Clinton. 

Alternative 125 crosses through two golf courses on either side of Route 5. To the west, it extends 

through Oneida Indian Nation-owned lands, including the northernmost portion of the Atunyote 

Golf Course and several other agricultural/undeveloped lands. In response to a request from the 

Oneida Nation to acquire these lands, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs prepared Draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statements addressing placing the lands into federal trust on behalf of 

Oneida Nation. A Record of Decision on the EIS was prepared in May 2008. Alternative 125 

extends south of the Oneida Nation facilities along the New York State Thruway that include the 

Turning Stone Resort and Casino. If Alternative 125 is advanced into Tier 2, efforts will be made to 

avoid impacts on the Atunyote Golf Course and other Oneida Nation-owned parcels. Alternative 

125 continues west through predominantly rural agricultural lands, passing between the villages of

Oneida Castle and Sherrill where it crosses Route 5 at the west end of the county. 

Through the eastern half of Madison County, Alternative 125 parallels Route 5 to the south, but is 

far enough south to avoid many of the properties fronting on the highway. Alternative 125 extends 

through the outskirts of the City of Oneida, on the east end of Madison County, and south of the 

village of Canastota in the middle of the county. In Madison County, Alternative 125 crosses 

through predominantly rural agricultural and forestland. Where it crosses roadways, there is the 

potential for displacements of residential and commercial properties. 

In Onondaga County, Alternative 125 would merge with the existing Empire Corridor. Where it 

extends 16 miles through urban areas in and surrounding the City of Syracuse, it follows the 

existing railroad. Depending on the design of the elevated railroad structure over the existing 

railroad, there may be right-of-way impacts, the extent of which would be determined in Tier 2. 

Outside of the Syracuse urban area, Alternative 125 diverges from the existing Empire Corridor and 

continues on a new alignment 61 miles west to a point 11 miles east of Rochester Station. 

Alternative 125 extends through predominantly rural agricultural lands in Onondaga County 

outside of the Syracuse urban area, but may involve displacements where it crosses roadways. In 

Cayuga and Wayne Counties, Alternative 125 extends north of the existing railroad through 

predominantly rural agricultural or forested lands, but where it crosses roadways, it may displace 

properties. In Wayne County, Alternative 125 would impact a private campground at MP QH322. 

To the west, this alternative would also pass through a trailer park at MP QH341 and may also 

impact businesses along this section of Route 31F.

In Monroe County, Alternative 125 extends parallel to Route 31F, extending through residential 

neighborhoods that become more dense approaching the City of Rochester. Alternative 125 merges 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

with the existing Empire Corridor along 16 miles in and surrounding the City of Rochester. 

Depending on the design of the elevated railroad structure over the existing railroad, there may be 

right-of-way impacts, the extent of which would be determined in Tier 2. Alternative 125 diverges 

from the existing Empire Corridor again 5.5 miles west of Rochester Station to continue on new 

alignment 52 miles west to Buffalo. West of where Alternative 125 diverges from Empire Corridor, 

outside of the City of Rochester, it extends north of a commercial/industrial area, where it may 

displace one building. To the west, Alternative 125 extends through rural agricultural or forested 

areas through the remainder of Monroe County and in Genesee County, where it may displace 

properties where it crosses roadways. Alternative 125 would displace a portion of a large 

commercial farm operation on County Road 9 (Albion Road) and would extend through portions of 

a sand and gravel operation on County Road 26 (Ledge Road). 

In Erie County, Alternative 125 would continue through rural agricultural lands, but also extends 

through more densely developed area, including a mobile home park, and business/industrial 

areas. This alternative may affect one or more industrial buildings/properties, before merging with 

Empire Corridor on the outskirts of Buffalo. Depending on the design of the elevated railroad 

structure over the existing railroad extending to the Buffalo Exchange Street Station, there may be 

right-of-way impacts, the extent of which would be determined in Tier 2. 

4.2.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During Tier 2, refinements in design will include efforts to avoid and minimize impacts on adjoining 

buildings and properties. For instance, if Alternative 125 is advanced for further consideration, 

efforts will be made in Tier 2 to avoid impacts on Oneida Nation-owned properties and other 

affected properties used by the community or for recreation, as well as residences and other land 

uses. If it is not possible to avoid property impacts, mitigation measures will include providing 

relocation assistance and compensation, as appropriate, to affected property owners, in 

conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). This law requires that fair and equitable assistance be 

provided to those persons displaced by federal or federally funded actions. 

Other potential mitigation measures include considering regional and local plans for transit 

connections and site development and consulting with regional and local officials in the siting and 

design of passenger facilities and amenities.

4.2.6. Future Analysis

During Tier 2, the property and right-of-way mapping will be refined, and the extent of property 

acquisitions and building impacts will be defined. Efforts will be made to refine the design to avoid 

property takings and impacts on neighborhoods, parks and recreation areas, community facilities, 

residences, and other environmentally sensitive land uses (e.g., Oneida Nation-owned properties) 

to the extent practicable. In areas where impacts are anticipated, local plans and zoning will be 

considered. Additional research will be performed regarding planned development in the vicinity 

of the station sites. Consistency with local plans and zoning will be addressed, and effects on land 

use patterns will be assessed as part of the Tier 2 evaluations. The effects on businesses and 

neighborhoods/community cohesion will be assessed as part of these evaluations. If necessary, 

relocation studies and relocation assistance and outreach will be provided to affected property 

Page 4-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

owners. 

4.3. Regional Population and Employment, and Business Districts

4.3.1. Regulatory Context

The Federal Railroad Administration’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Federal 

Register, Vol. 64, No. 101, May 26, 1999) requires consideration of both beneficial and adverse 

impacts of program alternatives on the socioeconomic environment, including demographic shifts 

and impacts on commerce, metropolitan areas, and business districts. The NYSDOT Project 

Development Manual also requires consideration of potential impacts on neighborhoods and 

communities, regional and local economies, and business districts in the evaluation of program 

alternatives. 

4.3.2. Methodology

The Tier 1 socioeconomic analysis examined population and employment trends for twenty-five 

counties that transect or adjoin the program corridor, comparing existing conditions to future 

(2035) projections. Although the ridership and market assessments for transportation analysis 

focused on the major metropolitan market areas (defined by the nine Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) areas serving urbanized areas within eight Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSA)), the study area for environmental assessments was based on county level data. The MPOs 

and MSAs define a broader area extending outside counties (and even states) immediately 

adjoining the existing rail lines, and not all counties along the tracks are within the nine MPOs/eight 

MSAs.

A comparison was made between existing 2010 and projected 2035 population to identify changes 

in demographics along the corridor. Existing county population statistics were obtained from the 

2010 U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census. Future county population projections were obtained 

from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.57 to provide uniform county-level projections over the 

statewide study area that traverses multiple regional planning areas. These projected figures do 

not take into account any changes in public policy and infrastructure investments, such as HighSpeed Rail Empire Corridor, which could potentially change the population and employment 

outlook particularly for the western corridor. Existing population data was also compiled for the 

year 2010, using U.S. Census data for the nine major cities along the corridor, including New York 

City, Yonkers, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo that form 

the core of the eight metropolitan regions or MSAs, and for the MSAs themselves (see Section 2.2.1, 

“Characteristics of the Major Markets”). Historical growth of these cities was also gauged by using 

2006 U.S. Census data obtained from the American Community Survey. 

57/ Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. is an independent firm that specializes in long-term county economic and 

demographic projections, based on comprehensive historical county database and the integrated nature of the projection 

model. County projections are updated annually and utilize county models that take into account specific local conditions 

based on historical data from 1969 to 2008 (1969 to 2009 for population). One key aspect of Woods & Poole projections 

is that the economies of counties are linked together: projected economic conditions in one county are reflected in the 

projected economic conditions in other counties. The accuracy of Woods & Poole’s projections has been comparable to 

the accuracy of other regional forecasting programs, including the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA) and Census Bureau projections over comparable forecast horizons.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-13

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

This analysis also considered labor statistics including county employment trends, unemployment 

(2010) and local business activity within the study corridor. Existing employment data (2009) for 

each county was obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA), as these represent a complete measure of part-time and full-time employment. Future 2035 

employment forecasts were obtained from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., that was factored based 

on the BEA existing employment figures. Employment data obtained from these sources account 

for wage and salary workers, proprietors or business owners (farm and non-farm), private 

household employees, and miscellaneous workers. BEA employment data are based on an 

establishment survey in which employers are asked the number of full- and part-time workers at a 

given establishment. Unemployment statistics for 2010 were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics. The socioeconomic profile identifies key labor markets 

areas that may become more accessible as a result of the program. 

The analysis provides a discussion of the potential effects of the program alternatives on the 

socioeconomic environment within the more populated and urban areas as noted. While the 

assessment is qualitative in nature, it focuses on general socioeconomic effects that could occur 

along the corridor. Any future Tier 2 analyses would include a more detailed examination of 

potential impacts of the selected alternative, including a detailed evaluation of means to avoid or 

minimize impacts through design and mitigation strategies to offset remaining unavoidable 

impacts.

4.3.3. Existing Conditions

Population

Overview

This section will describe the socioeconomic conditions, trends at the county and city levels for the 

years 2009/2010 and 2035. The study area covers a twenty–five county area representing a 

population of 8,951,525 in 2010 (refer to Exhibit 4-4 and Exhibit 4-5). This is approximately 46 

percent of New York’s 2010 estimated population of 19,378,102 persons. As discussed in Section 

2.2.1, “Characteristics of the Major Markets,” estimated ridership for the program would extend 

over a wider region that includes entire metropolitan areas (served by the Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations). It is projected that the study corridor will realize an 8.0 percent gain in population 

by the year 2035 or an increase of 716,890 persons. 

The eleven most populous counties along the 142-miles of the Empire Corridor South from 

Manhattan (New York County) to Rensselaer County contain 61.0 percent of the 90/110 and 125 

Study Area population. The fourteen counties in the less populated and predominantly rural areas 

along the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch extending 322 miles from Albany County west to 

Niagara Falls (Niagara County) comprise 39.1 percent of the study area population. Empire 

Corridor South has twice the population in an area roughly half the size as Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch. A detailed county by county description of population statistics is presented 

in Appendix G.2. 

Page 4-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Source: U.S. Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File

Exhibit 4-4—2010 County Population

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-5—2010 and 2035 Population for Counties in the Study Area

County 2010 

Population 

2035 

Population

Change 

in No. of 

Persons

% 

Change 

New York 1,585,873 1,700,678 114,805 7.24%

Bronx 1,385,108 1,610,926 225,818 16.30%

Westchester 949,113 1,052,815 103,702 10.93%

Rockland 311,687 359,957 48,270 15.49%

Putnam 99,710 141,646 41,936 42.06%

Orange 372,813 512,458 139,645 37.46%

Dutchess 297,488 358,964 61,476 20.67%

Ulster 182,493 218,775 36,282 19.88%

Columbia 63,096 67,724 4,628 7.33%

Greene 49,221 53,027 3,806 7.73%

Rensselaer 159,429 158,383 -1,046 -0.66%

Albany 304,204 288,503 -15,701 -5.16%

Schenectady 154,727 149,352 -5,375 -3.47%

Schoharie 32,749 34,793 2044 6.24%

Montgomery 50,219 46,379 -3,840 -7.65%

Herkimer 64,519 61,942 -2,577 -3.99%

Oneida 234,878 222,788 -12,090 -5.15%

Madison 73,442 72,721 -721 -0.98%

Onondaga 467,026 450,453 -16,573 -3.55%

Cayuga 80,026 81,368 1,342 1.68%

Wayne 93,772 97,899 4,127 4.40%

Monroe 744,344 740,760 -3,584 -0.48%

Genesee 60,079 57,516 -2,563 -4.27%

Erie 919,040 912,661 -6,379 -0.69%

Niagara 216,469 215,927 -542 -0.25%

Total 8,951,525 9,668,415 716,890 8.01%

Source: 2010 population data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census

2035 population projections prepared by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.

Empire Corridor South

The counties of New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, Ulster, 

Columbia, Greene, and Rensselaer, comprise the more urbanized and populous segment of the 

Empire Corridor. These counties had a 2010 population of 5,456,031 persons, comprising almost 

2/3 of the study area population. The total population is projected to grow by 779,322 persons or 

14.3 percent by the year 2035. Exhibit 4-5 compares the 2010 and 2035 populations by county for 

the entire Empire Corridor. 

Page 4-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The population in the fourteen counties (Albany, Schenectady, Schoharie, Montgomery, 

Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Onondaga, Cayuga, Wayne, Monroe, Genesee, Erie and Niagara) 

along Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch totaled 3,495,494 persons in 2010. In contrast to the 

counties to the south, this region is forecasted to experience a loss in population, totaling 62,432 

persons (or -1.79) by 2035. This decline follows historic population losses precipitated by the 

decline of the region’s core manufacturing and industrial base. Schoharie County is projected to 

experience the largest future percentage increases in population in 2035, with a projected growth 

of 6.24 percent.

Major Cities

As discussed in the previous section, the principal cities located along the Empire Corridor include 

New York City, Yonkers, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and 

Buffalo. Each of these urban centers has a 2010 population over 50,000, with the exception of 

Poughkeepsie (32,738), as noted in Exhibit 4-6 below. The City of Poughkeepsie was included as 

the geographic and to a large degree, transportation and institutional center of the Hudson Valley 

Region. New York City, Yonkers, and Buffalo were the cities that experienced a loss in population 

between 2006 and 2010. New York City lost 39,293 persons over this 4-year period, compared to a 

loss of 1,876 persons in Yonkers and 14,749 persons in Buffalo. The remaining cities experienced 

increases in population that ranged from 2,442 (Rochester) to 4,575 (Schenectady) from 2006 to 

2010. Additional description of the major cities is contained in the Business District discussion.

Exhibit 4-6—Population of Major Cities in the Study Area

City 2006 

Population

2010 

Population

2006 to 2010 Change

No. of 

Persons Percentage

New York City 8,214,426 8,175,133 -39,293 -0.48%

Yonkers city, Westchester County 197,852 195,976 -1,876 -0.95%

Poughkeepsie city, Dutchess County 30,050 32,736 2,686 8.94%

Albany city, Albany County 93,963 97,856 3,893 4.14%

Schenectady city, Schenectady County 61,560 66,135 4,575 7.43%

Utica city, Oneida County 59,082 62,235 3,153 5.34%

Syracuse city, Onondaga County 140,658 145,170 4,512 3.21%

Rochester city, Monroe County 208,123 210,565 2,442 1.17%

Buffalo city, Erie County 276,059 261,310 -14,749 -5.34%

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program 

Employment

Overview

The study area comprised 59.3 percent of the total state employment of 10,929,753 in 2009, the 

third largest state labor market in the country. Employment in the twenty-five study area counties 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

totaled 6,481,775 in 2009, and this estimate only includes two of the five counties of New York City. 

The majority of jobs were located in the eleven counties along Empire Corridor South, which 

accounted for 67.8 percent of the study area employment. The fourteen counties along Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch provided 32.2 percent of study area employment in 2009. Appendix 

G.3 describes employment and forecasted trends by county for the study area. Exhibit 4-7 shows 

existing (2009) and future (2035) employment as well as 2010 annual average unemployment 

rates for each county.

Exhibit 4-7—2009 and 2035 Employment and 2010 Unemployment Rates for Study Area Counties

County 2009 

Employment

2035 

Employment

2009-2035 Change 2010 Annual 

Average 

Unemployment 

Rate

No. of 

Jobs Percentage

New York 2,748,224 3,011,516 263,292 9.58% 8.0%

Bronx 345,884 465,307 119,423 34.53% 12.8%

Westchester 569,421 710,052 140,631 24.70% 7.2%

Rockland 151,645 188,895 37,250 24.56% 7.1%

Putnam 40,457 49,249 8,792 21.73% 6.9%

Orange 179,885 237,400 57,515 31.97% 8.3%

Dutchess 150,159 192,940 42,781 28.49% 7.9%

Ulster 85,720 112,913 27,193 31.72% 8.2%

Columbia 31,784 41,869 10,085 31.73% 7.6%

Greene 20,558 27,268 6,710 32.64% 8.6%

Rensselaer 71,143 96,338 25,195 35.41% 7.8%

Albany 271,960 330,785 58,825 21.63% 7.2%

Schenectady 74,671 84,890 10,219 13.69% 7.7%

Schoharie 12,720 16,643 3,923 30.84% 9.4%

Montgomery 22,857 29,158 6,301 27.57% 9.8%

Herkimer 24,627 27,669 3,042 12.35% 8.4%

Oneida 134,560 188,186 53,626 39.85% 7.8%

Madison 30,936 37,879 6,943 22.44% 8.4%

Onondaga 301,733 362,124 60,391 20.01% 8.0%

Cayuga 36,333 42,302 5,969 16.43% 8.3%

Wayne 37,227 42,897 5,670 15.23% 8.8%

Monroe 468,811 596,481 127,670 27.23% 8.0%

Genesee 30,643 35,210 4,567 14.90% 7.6%

Erie 552,085 634,748 82,663 14.97% 8.2%

Niagara 87,732 98,693 10,961 12.49% 9.1%

Total 6,481,775 7,661,412 1,179,637 18% 8.2%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009), Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. (2035 projections),

Annual 2010 Unemployment rates: Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Data by County,” 

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty10.txt>, accessed June 2, 2011. 

Page 4-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor South

The eleven counties along Empire Corridor South accounted for the majority of study area 

employment and provided 4,394,880 jobs in 2009. This labor market is projected to increase by 

16.8 percent by 2035, with an increase projected of 738,867 jobs. 

The two study area counties within New York City, New York (Manhattan Borough) and Bronx 

Counties accounted for almost half (47.7%) of 2009 study area employment, and this does not 

account for employment within the remainder of New York City. This labor market is projected to 

expand by 382,715 jobs (12.4%) by 2035. 2010 average annual employment stood at 8.0 percent in 

Manhattan, and Bronx County had the highest unemployment rate in the study area (12.8%). 

Westchester County was the second largest labor market, outside of Manhattan, comprising 

569,421 jobs in 2009. This job base is projected to expand to 24.7 percent by 2035 (140,631 jobs). 

2010 average annual unemployment rate in Westchester County stood at 7.2 percent.

The remaining five counties close to New York City similarly provided a significant job base, with 

the smallest number of jobs provided in Putnam County (40,457 jobs in 2009). These five counties 

accounted for 607,866 jobs in 2009, or 9.4 percent of study area employment. This job base is 

projected to expand by 28.5 percent (an increase of 173,531 jobs) by 2035. These five counties had 

an average annual unemployment rate of 7.7 percent in 2010. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The fourteen counties along Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch accounted for 2,086,895 jobs in 

2009. This labor market is forecasted to expand by 21.1 percent by 2035, with a projected increase 

of 440,770 jobs by 2035. 

Erie County had the largest employment base in 2009, with 552,085 jobs, followed by Monroe 

County (468,811 jobs), Onondaga County (301,733 jobs), Oneida County (134,560 jobs) and 

Niagara County (87,732 jobs). Together, these five counties accounted for 23.9 percent of the 

study area employment in 2009, and are forecasted to grow by 24.5 percent (or 1,880,332 jobs) by 

2035. The 2010 unemployment rate was highest in the western counties. Niagara County had the 

highest unemployment rate (9.1%), and the remaining counties had unemployment rates that 

ranged from 7.8 percent (Oneida County) to 8.2 percent (Erie County).

Business Districts

The eight major business districts along the study area are described below, and more information 

on these districts and planned or recent developments is also included in Appendix G.3.3. All of 

these business districts are located directly along the Empire Corridor for the 90/110 Study Area, 

and all but Schenectady and Utica are located directly along the 125 Study Area. However, under 

Alternative 125, the existing Amtrak service provided to all of these cities would remain the same.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-19

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

New York City

New York City is the financial capital of the country, and along with London and Tokyo regarded as 

a global financial center. Midtown Manhattan is the largest central business district in the U.S., and 

Lower Manhattan is the third largest. If the two study area counties, New York County (Manhattan) 

and Bronx County, were cities, they would each rank among the top 10 cities nationwide in terms of 

population. 

New York City is the center of one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world. New York 

City is the center of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York-New JerseyPennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which had a population of 18,897,109 in the 

2010 U.S. Census. In 2007 to 2009, the gross metropolitan product of the New York metropolitan 

area (New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania MSA) was 

1.210 trillion dollars, larger than the combined gross domestic product of Pennsylvania and New 

Jersey, and larger than all but one state (California)58. Based on commuting patterns, a wider 

region is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, New York-New 

Jersey-Connecticut-Pennsylvania Combined Statistical Area. One of every fifteen Americans lives 

within this wider region. 

New York City’s labor market totaled 4,722,352 in 2009, comprising 43.2 percent of New York 

State’s employment. The city is critical to the state’s economic vitality and is a driver of the national 

economy. In terms of economic recovery from the current recession, the State of New York had the 

second highest percentage increase of any state in the country in gross domestic product from 2009 

to 2010 (5.1% increase). 

Yonkers

Yonkers is part of the New York City metropolitan area and is the fourth largest city in the state. It 

is the largest city in Westchester County and is situated within 12 miles of midtown Manhattan and 

approximately 10 miles from the Westchester County seat in White Plains. The city borders are 

Bronx County on the south and the Hudson River on the west, the Bronx River on the east and the 

Town of Greenburg to the north. The Yonkers central business district serves a largely local 

population with major retail activity and anchors, similar to the retail mall complexes in nearby 

White Plains. The downtown waterfront that has historically played an important role in the city’s 

economy, and the city is embarking on an ambitious, mixed-use waterfront revitalization program. 

Poughkeepsie

Poughkeepsie is the seat of Dutchess County and the de facto center of the Hudson Valley. It is 

located midway between New York City and Albany, and is the largest principal city of the 

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown Metropolitan Statistical Area, which encompasses all of 

Dutchess and Orange Counties. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, this 

metropolitan statistical area had a per capita income of $39,070 and a gross domestic product of 

21.499 billion dollars in 2009. Poughkeepsie is the mid-Hudson Valley’s regional governmental, 

58/ Global Insight, U.S. Metro Economies: GMP—The Engines of America’s Growth, Gross Metropolitan Product with Housing 

Update. Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Council for the New American City, June 2008; Updated using 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product by State/Metropolitan Area.” Accessed June 17, 2011. 

<http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1>, 

<http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2>. 

Page 4-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

educational, and cultural center. Poughkeepsie has become a civic center for federal, state, and 

county, government offices, and private industry includes a major campus of IBM.

Albany/Schenectady within the Capital District

The City of Albany is the State Capital and is the seat of Albany County. Albany is the heart of the 

Capital District that includes the neighboring City of Schenectady. The City of Schenectady is the 

seat for Schenectady County. Both cities are part of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which had a total 2010 population of 870,716, the fourth largest in the state. 

According to the BEA, this MSA region had a per capita income in 2009 of $42,206, ranking 50th in 

the nation, and with gross domestic product of $39.597 billion. Based on commuting patterns, 

Albany and Schenectady are part of a larger area defined by the federal government as the AlbanySchenectady-Amsterdam, New York Combined Statistical Area. In terms of population, the cities of 

Albany and Schenectady were the 6th and 9th largest in the state, respectively. 

Albany and Schenectady have been a center for higher education as well as government and 

healthcare, for over a century, and the economies of both cities has historically been dependent on 

these three sectors. 

Utica

Utica is the seat of Oneida County and, along with the neighboring City of Rome, is the principal 

urban centers of the Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area. In 2010, the population of the UticaRome Metropolitan Statistical Area was 299,397. In 2009, according to the BEA, the per capita 

income of the Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area was $33,269, and the gross domestic 

product was $8.801 billion. 

Syracuse

Syracuse is the seat of Onondaga County and the fifth largest city in the state. It is the center of the 

Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had a population in 2010 of 662,577, and is part of a 

larger Syracuse-Auburn, New York Combined Statistical Area. According to the BEA, in 2009 the 

Syracuse MSA had a per capita income of $36,833 and a gross domestic product of $26.352 billion. 

Syracuse is the economic and educational hub of Central New York. It has access to major 

convention sites in the downtown convention center complex and, west of the city, the Empire Expo 

Center (site of the annual Great New York State Fair). It is also home to Syracuse University, a 

major research institution; the State University of New York Upstate Medical University; the State 

University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry; and other smaller colleges 

and universities. 

Rochester

Rochester is the third largest city and the second largest regional economy in New York. Rochester 

is the county seat for Monroe County. The 2010 population of the Rochester MSA was 1,054,323. 

In 2009, according to the BEA, the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area had a per capita income 

of $39,036, and a gross domestic product of $43,517 billion. Based on commuting patterns, a larger 

area has been defined by the federal government as the Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, New York 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Combined Statistical Area. 

Rochester is an international center for higher learning and medical/technological development. It 

is the home of the University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, as well as companies 

such as Eastman Kodak, Bausch and Lomb, and Xerox. 

Buffalo

Buffalo is the second most populous city in the state and the seat of Erie County. It is located on the 

eastern shore of Lake Erie and at the head of the Niagara River. It is the principal city of the 

Buffalo-Niagara Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had a 2010 population of 1,135,509. In 

2009, according to the BEA, the per capita income of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA was $37,469, 

and the gross domestic product was $43.157 billion. A larger area, the Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus 

Combined Statistical Area has also been defined by the federal government. In 2009, Buffalo was 

the third largest economy in the state, close behind Rochester.

4.3.4. Environmental Consequences

Base Alternative

Population

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

against and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative 

will maintain weekday service frequencies and provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. 

With the Base Alternative, population will continue to grow at least as fast as projected in the study 

area counties. It is projected that the study corridor will realize an 8.0 percent gain in population 

from 2010 to 2035, or an increase of 716,890 persons. In the year 2035, population along the 

eleven Empire Corridor South counties is projected to increase by 779,322 persons or 14.3 percent, 

while the population within the fourteen counties along the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

study area is projected to decline by 62,432 persons or 1.7 percent. 

Improvements to intercity passenger service that result in increases in ridership and improve 

mobility and travel choices may, in turn influence the attractiveness of the area for businesses and 

residents. This in turn could result in increases in population. With the Base Alternative, this effect, 

if discernible, will be a minimal increase.

Employment and Businesses

With the Base Alternative (consisting of a program of eight improvements), weekday service 

frequencies will be maintained. The Base Alternative will involve construction restricted to the 

right-of-way, and no direct business displacements are anticipated. With this alternative, 

employment and business activity will continue to grow as projected, with a total increase of 18 

percent, or 1.18 million jobs from 2009 to 2035. The eleven counties along Empire Corridor South, 

accounting for the majority (67.8%) of study area employment is projected to increase by 16.8 

percent from 2009 to 2035, with an increase projected of 738,867 jobs. For the fourteen counties 

Page 4-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

along Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch, the labor market is forecasted to expand by 21.1 

percent from 2009 to 2035, with a projected increase of 440,770 jobs by 2035. 

Alternative 90A

Population

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with additional capacity (third track) in selected areas. 

Improvements in service frequencies and travel times would result in increases in ridership. 

Improved mobility and travel choices could make the program area more attractive to businesses 

and residents. This may translate into increases in population that would be greater than those 

experienced with the Base Alternative. 

Employment and Businesses

Alternative 90A would involve construction confined to the existing right-of-way, and no direct 

business displacements would occur. The increased frequency of service and improved travel 

times with Alternative 90A would result in increases in ridership and could make the program area 

more attractive to both employers and employees. This would represent a positive effect for 

businesses, both from the perspective of potential clients and business and improving accessibility 

and convenience for workers. Any corresponding improvements in freight traffic would benefit 

businesses that rely on freight for their operations. This may result in increases in employment and 

business activity that would be greater than the increases experienced under the Base Alternative, 

particularly in the area of the station sites.

Alternative 90B

Population

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A 

(and would include the 90A improvements) and would provide further reductions in travel time, 

with a dedicated third track and sections of fourth track provided between Schenectady and 

Buffalo. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Alternative 90B would involve isolated right-of-way impacts in limited areas in six counties, with 

some potential to affect businesses. The acreage of commercial land within the 90/110 Study Area 

is shown in Exhibit 4-2. Improved intercity passenger rail service, with more frequent trips and 

faster service, would improve mobility and travel choices, making the program area potentially 

more attractive to businesses and residents. This could result in increases in population that would 

be greater than for Alternative 90A. This effect may be more pronounced in the vicinity of the 

station sites. These increases in ridership and the additional mobility benefit afforded cities and 

bedroom communities west of Albany may offset to some degree the projected decreases in 

population that are forecasted to occur by 2035 within counties along the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-23

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Employment and Businesses

Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel time and increases in ridership, 

compared with Alternative 90A. Faster travel times and more frequent service would better serve 

businesses and could potentially result in greater increases in employment and business activity 

than for Alternative 90A. Better segregation of passenger service and freight service between 

Schenectady and Buffalo, and any corresponding improvements in freight traffic, could provide 

more benefits to those businesses that rely on freight traffic. Alternative 90B is anticipated to 

potentially result in increases in business activity that would be greater than that for Alternative 

90A, particularly in the vicinity of the station sites. 

Alternative 110

Population

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times and ridership, with 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo and additional infrastructure improvements 

to accommodate higher speeds. 

The improved frequency and travel times of intercity passenger rail service would provide 

increases in mobility and travel choices, making the program area potentially more attractive to 

businesses and residents. This could result in increases in population, which would be greater than 

for Alternative 90B, and this effect may be more pronounced in the vicinity of the station sites. 

Employment and Businesses

Alternative 110 would involve greater property impacts (with potential direct impacts on 53 areas

in eight counties) than Alternative 90B, increasing the potential for direct impacts on businesses. 

The acreage of commercial land within the 90/110 Study Area is presented in Exhibit 4-2. 

Alternative 110 would provide further improvements in travel times and ridership, which could 

potentially benefit both businesses, and provide more convenient access for prospective clients and 

employees. This could result in increases in employment and business activity that would be 

greater than for Alternative 90B, particularly in the vicinity of station sites. Better segregation of 

passenger service and freight service between Schenectady and Buffalo, and corresponding 

improvements in freight movements, could benefit businesses that rely on freight traffic. 

Alternative 125

Population

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. This new alignment would 

bypass stations at Schenectady, Amsterdam, Rome, and Utica.

This alternative would result in the greatest improvements to service in areas west of Albany. 

Improving the frequency and travel times of intercity passenger rail service, particularly west of 

Albany, would increase mobility and travel choices for businesses and residents, making the 

Page 4-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

program area potentially more attractive as a bedroom community. This alternative would have 

the greatest potential to result in increases in population within the program area of all the 

alternatives under consideration, and this effect may be more pronounced in the area of the station 

sites served. 

Employment and Businesses

Of the alternatives under consideration, Alternative 125 would involve the greatest potential for 

business displacements and direct impacts, since it would involve construction of 236 miles of a 

new sealed corridor requiring acquisition of two to three thousand acres of land. However, the 

conceptual location of the new corridor in primarily undeveloped rural lands between the major 

urban centers would minimize the likelihood of business displacements. The acreage of 

commercial land within the 125 Study Area is shown in Exhibit 4-3. If Alternative 125 is advanced 

for further consideration during Tier 2, efforts to further minimize business displacements and 

direct impacts would be made as the design is further refined. 

At the same time, this alternative may represent the largest benefit to businesses, employment, and 

business activity, although this effect may be more pronounced in the stations that experience 

improved service with Alternative 125 (Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo [BuffaloDepew and Buffalo Exchange Street], Niagara Falls stations as well as stations along Empire 

Corridor South). Alternative 125 provides the fastest travel times of the alternatives under 

consideration, and at the same time, provides more frequent service. Alternative 125 provides 

exclusive, grade-separated tracks between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo-Depew stations, which 

bypass several of the station sites along the existing Empire Corridor (Schenectady, Amsterdam, 

Rome, and Utica). With this alternative, existing service to Amtrak passenger stations currently 

served along the Empire Corridor will be maintained, so no adverse impacts to these business 

districts from loss of business generated by patrons will occur. 

4.3.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation strategies will depend on the extent of program impacts to neighborhoods and

businesses and potential effects on communities along the prospective route (e.g., displacements, 

noise impacts). The mitigation considered will depend on the extent of impacts associated with 

alternatives selected for advancement in Tier 2. Alternative 125 will require more mitigation than 

lower speed alternatives that follow the existing Empire Corridor (Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110), 

as it may involve the greatest increases in population and employment, as well as mitigation for 

displacements along the new Rensselaer to Buffalo route bypassing major sections of the Empire 

Corridor. 

Mitigation measures can range from site-specific mitigation to general program-wide measures. 

Mitigation strategies will be developed in consultation with the affected communities, including 

discussion of station access, pedestrian accommodations, and connections to existing transit and 

highways. Potential site-specific mitigation strategies might include improved grade crossing 

protection, accommodation of pedestrian access at crossings and at station sites, 

mitigation/relocation of affected residences and businesses, and installation of noise barriers. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-25

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

4.3.6. Future Analysis

The effects of the selected program alternative will be further evaluated in Tier 2. The effect of 

improved service on ridership and potentially indirect effects on population and employment, and 

businesses would be evaluated further in Tier 2. The ridership projections will be refined, as well 

as the design and mapping showing the proposed rights-of-way limits. The extent of analysis 

required will depend on the alternative selected, but additional analysis of site-specific effects on 

affected communities and businesses will be performed. As these effects will be greater for 

alternatives that deviate from the existing Empire Corridor, the analysis required will also be 

greater for these alternatives (Alternatives 110 and 125). 

The need for the following evaluations will be determined in Tier 2 depending upon which 

alternative is selected for further review:

• Effects of property displacements and business impacts of these displacements and relocation

studies;

• Effects on community cohesion for displacements within residential neighborhoods;

• Effect of population and employment changes and growth, and corresponding demands for

housing (and potentially Transit Oriented Development); and

• The effects on station and pedestrian access and vehicular traffic circulation on roadway

networks around passenger rail stations.

The mitigation measures for potential effects will also be identified during Tier 2 review . 

4.4. Environmental Justice and Title VI

4.4.1. Regulatory Context

Environmental justice refers to social equity in sharing the benefits and burdens of a project or 

program. Title VI, enacted as part of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 2000d) prohibits 

discrimination on the bases of race, color, or national origin in federally assisted programs or 

activities. In addition, Title II of the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101) and 

Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) prohibit discrimination on the 

basis of disability in all public transportation. Executive Order (EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires each 

federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, "disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations."59 

The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) issued Order 5610.2(a) to address 

environmental justice for minority and low-income populations.60 The Council on Environmental 

59/ Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.”

Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 32, February 11, 1994.

60/ U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012. U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(a), “Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 77, No. 99, May 10, 2012.

Page 4-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Quality (CEQ) provides policy guidance in implementing NEPA61 that defines minority and lowincome populations as either:

• The minority or low-income population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent.

• The population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographical 

analysis.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Commissioner’s Policy 

29, Environmental Justice and Permitting, provides guidance on incorporating environmental 

justice concerns into environmental reviews and projects subject to the State Environmental 

Quality Review Act (SEQR), where NYSDEC has a lead agency role.62 While NYSDEC is not a lead 

agency for the program, this guidance provides useful background information for an 

environmental justice analysis.

NYSDEC’s Environmental Justice Policy defines a minority community as a contiguous area with 

multiple census block groups, having a minority population equal to or greater than 51.1 percent of 

the total population in an urban area and 33.8 percent of the total population in a rural area. 

NYSDEC’s Environmental Justice Policy defines a low-income community as one where the lowincome population (i.e., persons living below the poverty threshold) is equal to or greater than 

23.59 percent of the total population.

4.4.2. Methodology

Minority and low-income information were collected and presented by county, the geographic unit 

used to map minority and low-income populations for this study. To supplement the county-wide 

data, minority and low-income populations for the nine major cities along the corridor (as 

described in Section 4.4.1) were collected. These major centers include the cities of New York City, 

Yonkers, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. The minority 

populations were characterized using 2010 U.S. Census data for race. Minority population includes 

persons who are American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, black or African American, Hispanic or 

Latino, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander. Low-income populations were identified using 

the U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2005-2009) data for persons living 

below the poverty level. 

These statistics were compared to statewide averages and federal (CEQ) and state (NYSDEC) 

environmental justice criteria. The NYSDEC criteria for race are different for urban and rural areas. 

The counties in both the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas were considered to be urban areas, as 

defined by U.S. Census 2000 urban area boundaries, with the exception of Putnam, Schoharie, 

Montgomery, Madison, Cayuga, Wayne, and Genesee Counties. 

Once the environmental justice populations were identified, a Tier 1 assessment of 

61/ National Environmental Policy Act, 1969. “Title II, Council on Environmental Quality.” Amended, January 1, 1970, July 3, 1975, 

August 9, 1975 and September 13, 1982.

62/ NYSDEC, 2003. “Commissioner Policy 29, Environmental Justice and Permitting.” New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, March 19, 2003.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-27

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

disproportionate impacts was completed for each of the alternatives. Within the Tier 2 assessment, 

census block group data will be used to identify minority and low income populations within the 

study area. This level of data may identify additional environmental justice communities not 

identified in Tier 1, which uses county level data. 

4.4.3. Existing Conditions

Overview

The environmental justice study area consists of 20 counties for the 90/110 Study Area and 21 

counties for the 125 Study Area. There are at least eight major metropolitan areas. The minority 

and low-income populations for the study area are shown in Exhibit 4-8. Overall, the State of New 

York has a minority population of 34.3 percent and a low-income population of 13.8 percent. The 

NYSDEC criteria for environmental justice include a minority population equal to or greater than 

51.1 percent in urban areas. This was considered to be the threshold for a potential environmental 

justice area for most of the study area counties except for seven rural counties (Putnam, Schoharie, 

Montgomery, Madison, Cayuga, Wayne, and Genesee Counties), where 33.8 percent was used as the 

threshold for minority populations. The NYSDEC criteria for low-income population are 23.59 

percent. These are the benchmarks that were used to define environmental justice populations. 

In general, the New York metropolitan area, and in particular, Bronx County had the highest 

statistics for minorities and low-income populations. However, although both Manhattan and the 

Bronx had populations greater than the statewide average, only the Bronx exceeded the NYSDEC 

criteria. 

Generally, as the rail corridor moves north out of New York City and Bronx County, statistics for 

counties to the north are lower than statewide averages. Although the counties with metropolitan 

areas had generally higher minority populations, and low-income populations are generally higher 

west of Albany; only three other counties, Montgomery, Oneida, and Erie Counties, exceeded the 

statewide averages and only for low-income populations. The environmental justice statistics were 

generally higher in the cities than for the counties along the rail corridor, as shown in Exhibit 4-8.

The statistics for minority and low-income populations in each county are further discussed in 

Appendix G.4 for the Empire Corridor South from New York City to Rensselaer County; and Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch (both 90/110 and 125 Study Areas) from Albany County to 

Buffalo/Niagara Falls. 

4.4.4. Environmental Consequences

Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Environmental 

justice efforts focus on improving the environment in communities, specifically minority and lowincome communities, and addressing disproportionate adverse environmental impacts that may 

exist in those communities. 

Disproportionately high and adverse effects are defined as either of the following:

Page 4-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-8—Minority and Low-income Population Percentages by County/Major City Along the 

Empire Corridor Study Area

County Major City Percent Minority1 Percent Low-income2,3

New York 42.6 17.3

Bronx 72.1 27.9

New York City6 56.0 19.1

Westchester 31.9 7.9

Yonkers 44.2 13.8

Putnam4 9.3 6.6

Dutchess 19.9 8.0

Poughkeepsie 49.1 23.9

Columbia 9.4 9.5

Rensselaer 12.5 11.1

Albany 21.8 12.4

Albany 43.0 25.3

Schenectady 20.4 10.8

Schenectady 38.6 20.6

Schoharie 4,5 3.7 11.0

Montgomery4 9.4 15.4

Herkimer 3.4 12.0

Oneida 12.9 14.5

Utica 31.0 29.0

Madison4 5.0 9.7

Onondaga 18.9 13.2

Syracuse 44.0 31.1

Cayuga4 7.5 12.4

Wayne4 7.1 11.0

Monroe 23.9 13.1

Rochester 56.3 30.4

Genesee4 7.1 11.1

Erie 20.0 13.9

Buffalo 49.6 29.6

Niagara 11.5 12.3

State of New York 34.3 13.8

NYSDEC 51.1/33.8 23.59 1/ NYSDEC’s Environmental Justice Policy (Commissioner’s Policy 29, “Environmental Justice and Permitting,” NYSDEC Policy, 

Issuing Authority: Commissioner Erin M. Crotty, Date Issued: 3/19/03) defines a minority community as a contiguous area with 

multiple census block groups, having a minority population equal to or greater than 51.1 percent of the total population in an urban 

area and 33.8 percent of the total population in a rural area. 

2/ Percent of individuals living below the poverty level

3/ NYSDEC’s Environmental Justice Policy defines a low-income community as one where the low-income population (i.e., persons 

living below the poverty threshold) is equal to or greater than 23.59 percent of the total population.

4/ Considered a rural county based on U.S. Census Bureau urban area 2010 boundaries.

5/Only for the 125 Study Area.

6/ New York City also includes three other counties/boroughs besides New York (Manhattan) and Bronx.

Bold and italicize indicates communities that exceed the minority or low-income community thresholds

Source: Census, 2010a and Census, 2010b (2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• An impact that is predominantly borne by minority or low-income households,

• An impact that would be experienced by these populations in a way that is appreciably more 

severe or greater in magnitude than would be experienced by non-minority or non-low-income 

populations.

At the county level, all alternatives are unlikely to result in disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority and low-income communities. As part of Tier 2 analysis, a more detailed and 

refined study will be completed to document the presence of low-income and minority 

communities, and then to evaluate if there would be disproportionately high and adverse sitespecific effects on those communities. There are planned track improvements and upgrades 

proposed for all project alternatives in more urban locations. These include the cities of New York, 

Yonkers, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. Of these nine 

urban areas, all but Yonkers and Schenectady contain either a minority or low-income population 

(or both) above the NYSDEC criterion. Proposed work in these areas would not likely result in 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to these minority and/or low income communities 

since work would primarily be within the current right-of-way. In addition, all of the alternatives 

would provide increased transit options that would provide a benefit for the minority and lowincome communities.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and provide a program of eight improvements in track and 

station infrastructure. 

With the Base Alternative, it is unlikely that there will be a disproportionately high and adverse 

impact to minority or low-income communities. For this Tier 1 analysis, minority and low-income 

populations were addressed at the county level. Of the counties in the Empire Corridor study area, 

only Bronx County exceeded NYSDEC environmental justice thresholds of greater than 51.1 percent 

of the population for minority communities and greater than 23.59 percent of the population for 

low income communities. Currently, the Base Alternative does not include improvement projects 

within Bronx County; therefore, at the county level it is unlikely that there will be disproportionate 

impacts to low-income and minority communities. At the city level, one improvement project 

associated with the Base Alternative (EW-6) will include Syracuse track improvements and signal 

upgrades within the eastern portion of the City of Syracuse (MPs 278 to 291). The addition of an 

extra track and signal improvement work will occur primarily in the existing right-of-way, and it is 

unlikely that these improvements will have a disproportionately high and adverse impact to the 

low-income community within the City of Syracuse. Additionally, upgrades to the Rochester Station 

(EW-19) will occur in an area where NYSDEC environmental justice thresholds are exceeded; 

however, these improvements will ultimately provide a benefit to these communities and 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities will be 

unlikely through the station upgrade.

Since there are fewer improvements in the Base Alternative compared with the various build 

alternatives there will also be fewer benefits in terms of increased service and reliability to the lowincome and minority communities.

Page 4-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with additional capacity (third track) in selected areas. It is unlikely that 

there would be a disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority or low-income 

communities at the county-level. As mentioned above, Bronx County exceeded NYSDEC 

environmental justice criterion; however second track improvements proposed for Bronx County 

under Alternative 90A (MPs 9 to 13) would occur within the current right-of-way and would be 

unlikely to have a disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority and low-income 

communities in this area. 

Proposed signal upgrades, station improvements and areas of extra track proposed along the 

corridor for Alternative 90A would occur within the major urban areas of Poughkeepsie, Albany, 

Syracuse and Rochester. Minority and/or low-income populations that exceed the NYSDEC 

criterion are located in these improvement areas; however, Alternative 90A improvements 

(including signal upgrades and extra track) are anticipated to be contained within the existing 

right-of-way. Therefore, property impacts are not anticipated, and disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities would be unlikely. Station improvements 

at the Syracuse and Buffalo-Depew stations also are anticipated to be contained within the right-ofway, but would involve larger construction impacts (e.g., temporary noise increases); however, 

upgrades to the stations and increased trip frequency would ultimately provide a benefit to these 

communities and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income 

communities would be unlikely.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A 

(and would include the 90A improvements) and would provide further reductions in travel time, 

with a dedicated third track and sections of fourth track provided between Schenectady and 

Buffalo. Doubletracking along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed. It is unlikely that 

there would be disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income 

communities at the county-level for these improvements. 

The majority of the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch passes through rural land; however, 

there are planned third and fourth track improvements that would occur in more urban locations. 

These include the cities of Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. Minority and/or 

low-income communities that exceed the NYSDEC criterion are located in the cities of Utica, 

Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo; however third and fourth track would generally be added within 

the existing right-of-way and would be unlikely to have disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority or low-income communities. Upgrades to the stations in Utica and Syracuse 

and increased trip frequency would ultimately provide a benefit to these communities and 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities would be 

unlikely through station upgrades.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with exclusive third track 

between Schenectady and Buffalo and additional infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-31

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

higher speeds. With Alternative 110, the addition of third and fourth track and maintenance 

service roads will involve right-of-way impacts in more locations than for Alternative 90B. 

However, it is unlikely that there would be disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority 

or low-income communities, since the majority of these displacements would occur in rural or 

relatively low-density population areas where environmental justice communities have not been 

identified. However, in the cities of Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, there are limited 

residential takings anticipated, and minimal impacts are anticipated to environmental justice 

communities. Rochester has minority and low-income communities that exceed the NYSDEC 

criterion, and Utica, Syracuse, and Buffalo have low-income populations that exceed the NYSDEC 

criterion and elevated minority populations; however third and fourth track would generally be 

added within in the existing right-of-way in these cities. These cities, which each have a station site, 

are anticipated to receive disproportionate economic and transportation benefits from improved 

travel times with Alternative 110. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. 

The majority of Alternative 125 on new alignment along the Empire Corridor West would pass 

through rural and agricultural land, which would have low potential for impacts on environmental 

justice populations. There are planned third and fourth track improvements on elevated structure 

that would occur in more urban locations including the cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. 

Rochester has minority and low-income communities that exceed the NYSDEC criterion, and 

Syracuse and Buffalo have low-income populations that exceed the NYSDEC criterion and elevated 

minority populations; however third and fourth track would generally be added within in the 

existing right-of-way in these cities. The elevated tracks could have visual impacts in the counties 

of Rensselaer and Albany where it extends along the New York State Thruway and the communities 

of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, and there is a potential for right-of-way impacts where the 

tracks are elevated in these urban areas. In Tier 2, should this alternative be advanced for further 

consideration, a more detailed assessment will be performed using census block level information 

to identify potential environmental justice populations and refine the design/relocate the 

alignment to avoid or minimize potential impacts. 

Increased trip frequency would ultimately provide a benefit to these communities and 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities would be 

unlikely from the construction of Alternative 125. 

The exclusive two-track high-speed corridor for Alternative 125 would bypass the cities of Albany 

and Utica, which have low-income populations that exceed the NYSDEC criterion, although existing 

Empire Amtrak service would be maintained to stations in these cities. Existing Amtrak passenger 

service to all existing station stops along the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (including the 

stations bypassed by Alternative 125) would be maintained under Alternative 125, so these 

population centers would continue to be serviced. 

Page 4-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.4.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Disproportionately high and adverse impacts from the alternatives to low-income or minority 

populations are not anticipated at the county level and in the nine major cities of New York, 

Yonkers, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. Therefore, no 

mitigation is anticipated at this time. As part of Tier 2 analysis, more detailed and refined study will 

be completed to document the presence of low-income and minority communities, and then to 

evaluate if there would be disproportionately high and adverse site-specific effects on those 

communities. Public outreach efforts, which include outreach to potential low-income and minority 

population neighborhoods, would continue as design of the selected alternative is developed 

during the Tier 2 analysis.

4.4.6. Future Analysis

As mentioned above, during the Tier 2 analysis, a more detailed and refined study will be 

completed to more specifically document the presence of low-income and minority communities, 

and then to evaluate if there would be disproportionately high and adverse effects on those 

communities. Within the Tier 2 assessment, census block group data will be used to identify 

minority and low income populations within the study area as outlined in NYSDOT and NYSDEC 

guidance. This level of data may identify additional environmental justice communities not 

identified in the Tier 1 analysis, which uses county level data. The most recent 2010 U.S. Census 

block group data will be used to map the low-income and minority populations along the 

alternatives and proposed improvement areas. 

Information on potential minority and low-income communities will be gathered from on-theground public outreach activities such as listening sessions, small community meetings and one-onone conversations with public officials that will allow NYSDOT to better understand the 

demographics of the communities. This public outreach will also allow for a better understanding 

of issues and concerns environmental justice communities may have. This information will allow 

the team to refine the low-income and minority maps to better document the locations and 

characteristics of these communities and understand issues of concern. To evaluate if there would 

be disproportionately high and adverse effects on these communities, Tier 2 studies would involve 

a quantitative analysis for parameters that have the potential to affect these communities, such as:

• Right-of-way (number of acquisitions in low-income or minority communities versus in the 

general reference population), 

• Noise and vibration (number of noise and vibration impacts in low-income or minority 

community versus in the general reference population), 

• Parks and recreation (number of impacts to park and recreation facilities in low-income and 

minority communities versus in the general reference population), and 

• Other applicable parameters that may directly or indirectly affect identified environmental 

justice communities. 

Permitting by the NYSDEC through Commissioner’s Policy 29 for environmental justice may be 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-33

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

required depending on the results of the Tier 2 analysis.63 This policy provides guidance for 

incorporating environmental justice concerns into the NYSDEC environmental permit review 

process for individual projects in the program. Incorporation of environmental justice into the 

environmental permit for a project could include:

• Where a potential environmental justice area is identified during Tier 2 studies, the NYSDEC 

Division of Environmental Permits shall provide the applicant with relevant information on 

environmental justice. 

• Public participation in the NYSDEC environmental permit review process would require 

implementing a public participation plan prior to application submission and continue the plan 

throughout the application process.

• Where a potential environmental justice area is identified during Tier 2 studies, a full 

environmental assessment form shall be completed for those actions classified as Unlisted in 6 

NYCRR Part 617 and meeting the applicability requirements of Commissioner’s Policy 29.

• If the project involves more than one agency, the NYSDEC shall coordinate the review of the 

action with the other involved state and local agencies.

• Consistent with existing regulations, any adverse environmental impact related to 

environmental justice must be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable.

4.5. Community and Public Facilities

4.5.1. Regulatory Context

The Federal Railroad Administration’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Federal 

Register, Vol. 64, No. 101, May 26, 1999), states that “the following aspects of potential 

environmental impact should be considered:...solid waste disposal...impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment, including...the potential for community disruption...and impacts on local government 

service...Public health; Public safety...”. 

4.5.2. Methodology

Community and public facilities were identified for study areas within 1,000 feet of the centerline 

for all alternatives, based on review of available mapping and information. This inventory 

identified facilities that provide services to the public and gathering places and cultural centers 

such as museums and arenas. Data was collected on schools, colleges, fire stations, police stations, 

medical facilities (hospitals, emergency services, and medical offices), post offices, libraries, and 

churches. Also identified were public facilities, such as military facilities; government offices; 

Departments of Public Works/maintenance; sewer, solid waste, landfill, and recycling/transfer 

facilities; prisons; airports; cemeteries; and tourist information centers. 

Information was obtained from the New York State Geographic Information Systems Clearinghouse 

on federal and state non-recreation property, schools and colleges, government offices, libraries, 

points of interest, and tourist information centers. A review of Google aerial photography and maps 

was performed to identify other community and public facilities within the 2,000-foot-wide study 

63/ NYSDEC. “Commissioner Policy 29, Environmental Justice and Permitting.” March 19, 2003.

Page 4-34 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

area for both corridors. This review included publicly accessible facilities, such as golf courses or 

golf clubs that are privately owned, but are either open to the public or used for recreation by 

members.

4.5.3. Existing Conditions

There were a total of 224 community and public facilities located within 1,000 feet of the centerline 

for the 90/110 Study Area. Of these, approximately 81 community and public facilities are located 

along Empire Corridor South (142 miles in length), and 141 are located along Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch (322 miles in length). For the 125 Study Area, there were 161 community 

and public facilities located within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. Of the facilities in the 125 

Study Area, approximately 80 are located along Empire Corridor South and 81 are located along 

Empire Corridor West. Community facilities are summarized in Exhibit 4-9 and Exhibit 4-10 and 

are described in Appendix G.5, and shown in Exhibit G-3 of this section. 

Exhibit 4-9—Educational, Emergency/Medical, Government, and Religious Facilities in the Study 

Area

Counties School, College Fire, Police Medical Post Office Library Church Govt. Office

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area 

125 

Study 

Area 

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area 

125 

Study 

Area 

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area 

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area 

125 

Study 

Area 

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area 

125 

Study 

Area 

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area 

125 

Study 

Area 

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area 

125 

Study 

Area 

New York 18 18 2 2 1 1 1 1

Bronx 1 1 1 1

Westchester 7 7 1 1 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 2

Putnam 1 1 1 1

Dutchess 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1

Columbia 1 1

Rensselaer 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 2

Albany 2 1 1 1 1 1

Schenectady 1 1 1 2

Schoharie 1 1 1

Montgomery 3 2 3 3 5 6

Herkimer 2 1 2

Oneida

Madison 1 1 1 2 1 1

Onondaga 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1

Cayuga 1

Wayne 2 2 1 1 1 1

Monroe 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1

Genesee 2 2 3 2

Erie 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 4

Niagara 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2

TOTAL 45 42 12 5 16 13 22 12 19 10 22 11 23 13

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new 

alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-35

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-10—Military, Cultural, DPW/Solid Waste, Correctional, Airport, and Cemetery Facilities in 

the Study Area

Counties Military Cultural, 

Museum

DPW Solid 

Waste Sewer

Correctional 

Institution Airport Cemetery Total ALL Facilities

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/ 

110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

New York 1 1 23 23

Bronx 2 2

Westchester 1 1 2 2 1 1 23 23

Putnam 1 1 3 3

Dutchess 1 1 4 4 16 16

Columbia 2 2 1 1 4 4

Rensselaer 10 9

Albany 1 1 5 1 6 9

Schenectady 1 1 1 1 2 8 3

Schoharie 0 3

Montgomery 3 1 2 1 3 30 2

Herkimer 1 2 7 1

Oneida 2 1 1 1 4 1

Madison 1 2 5 5

Onondaga 2 3 1 2 3 2 17 13

Cayuga 1 1 2 1

Wayne 1 1 9 1

Monroe 4 5 1 1 14 15

Genesee 1 10 0

Erie 2 5 3 1 4 5 20 18

Niagara 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9

TOTAL 4 4 25 28 9 5 5 1 3 4 17 13 224 161

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new 

alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

4.5.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe impacts to community and public facilities, including cultural sites. 

However, review of aerial mapping indicates that the Base Alternative and Alternatives 90A and 

90B would have minimal impacts to community and public facilities. These alternatives would 

largely involve work within the right-of-way, with tracks being added in the location of the former 

track beds or existing access roads. For Alternative 110, greater impacts to community facilities 

will occur, and Alternative 125 has the greatest potential to affect public and cultural facilities. The 

proposed work will include the addition of track, as well as maintenance service roads in selected 

areas.

Page 4-36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. 

Because proposed work with this alternative is anticipated to be located entirely within the rightof-way, no land acquisitions are anticipated, and therefore no impacts to community facilities are 

anticipated.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. It is 

anticipated that work could be contained within the right-of-way, and no impacts on community 

facilities are anticipated. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and no impacts on community facilities are anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Improvements for Alternative 90B would start at MP 159.5 in the City of Schenectady and would 

extend west from here. At MP 160, the proposed siding and crossover would be adjacent to the 

New York State Department of Transportation Region One office and the Empire State College of the 

State University of New York, but would not extend outside of the right-of-way at this location. At 

MP 168, Vedder Cemetery is mapped just north of the railroad. Although Alternative 90B extends 

outside of the right-of-way to the west of this point to connect to the Selkirk Branch, the proposed 

third track and maintenance service road is within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the 

cemetery.

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way may occur at Amsterdam Station and at MPs 179, 

192, and 200 in Montgomery County. Proposed track and station improvements at Amsterdam 

Station and trackwork at MP 179 are not located close enough to impact community facilities. At 

MP 192, track realignment at a curve and a maintenance service road near MP 200 would extend 

outside of the right-of-way, but would not affect community facilities. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-37

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Construction of a fourth track and maintenance service road in Herkimer County near the 

Montgomery County Line (MPs 210.5 to 214.8) would not involve impacts to community facilities. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way between MPs 234 to 238 around the Utica Station 

in Oneida County and around the Syracuse Station (MPs 291 to 292, as addressed under Alternative 

90A) will be located within an urban area and will not affect community facilities. New passenger 

tracks will be added south of the tracks in the areas adjoining Alliance Stadium, a minor league 

baseball stadium in Syracuse, but will not directly affect the facility. In Wayne County, the addition 

of a maintenance service road may involve right-of-way impacts near MP 341, but this is not in the 

vicinity of community facilities. In Monroe County, the addition of a fourth track around the 

Rochester Station could also involve right-of-way impacts (MPs 371 to 376 and MPs 378.2 to 378.6, 

and MPs 379.15 to 379.6), this work will extend in the vicinity of facilities such as Frontier Field, a 

minor league baseball stadium, but will not directly affect community facilities. 

The addition of a fourth track at Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 431 to 432) would be located entirely 

within an urban area and will not affect community facilities. The double track along the Niagara 

Branch between MPs QDN 2 and QDN 7, also within an urban area, is anticipated to be contained 

within the right-of-way.

There are also locations where relocations of adjoining roadways may result in indirect impacts to 

community facilities, but these locations would be better defined in Tier 2.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and impacts to community and public facilities impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, trackwork would start at MP 159 and would extend west from here. At MP 

160, the proposed siding and crossover would be adjacent to the New York State Department of 

Transportation Region One office and the Empire State College of the State University of New York, 

but would not extend outside of the right-of-way at this location. Track realignments outside of the 

right-of-way would be required near MP 165 in Schenectady County. However, the proposed 

realignment will not directly impact community facilities at this location. 

At MP 168, Vedder Cemetery is mapped just north of the railroad. Although Alternative 110 

extends outside of the right-of-way to the west of this point to connect to the Selkirk Branch, the 

proposed third track and maintenance service road is within the right-of-way immediately adjacent 

Page 4-38 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

to the cemetery.

At MP 178.5 in Montgomery County, the realignment of Route 5 may be necessary to accommodate 

the third and fourth track and maintenance service road on the north side of the existing railroad. 

This realignment of the roadway may affect several properties fronting on Route 5 and adjoining 

streets (Mergner Road and Fort Johnson Avenue), including Old Fort Johnson, a historic site, and 

the Fort Johnson Fire Station. West of MP 186 in the village of Fonda, there is a post office building 

and the Fonda Municipal Building/Fire House that may be impacted by the construction of the 

new/relocated freight track and the maintenance service road. 

In Onondaga County, the 110 Alternative passes close to a cemetery between MPs 289.8 and 290; 

however, no impacts to the cemetery are anticipated as all work within this area is contained within 

the rail right-of-way. New passenger tracks will be added south of the tracks in the areas adjoining 

Alliance Stadium, a minor league baseball stadium in Syracuse, but will not directly affect the 

facility as the work will be contained within the right-of-way. 

In Monroe County, Alternative 110 passes close to the Rochester Medical Museum and Archives 

complex within the City of Rochester at MP 368.2, but no impacts to this facility are anticipated as 

all work is contained within the railway right-of-way. At approximate MP 371.8, Alternative 110 

passes very close to the Frontier Field minor league baseball stadium, but no impacts are 

anticipated since all work is contained within the right-of-way at this facility as well.

In Genesee County, Alternative 110 passes close to the Christian Missionary Academy between MPs 

400.5 and 401.5. In Erie County, Alternative 110 passes by three correctional institutions between 

MPs 422 and 423. At MP 425, the alternative passes close to the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport. 

Although these facilities are in close proximity to the railroad, no direct impacts to these facilities 

are anticipated. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River. No impacts to community facilities are anticipated within this one mile stretch of the 

corridor.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-39

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. 

This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a point 8.5 miles 

east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 extends through urban areas in Albany and Schenectady 

Counties over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) over most 

of this distance. For the majority of this stretch of dedicated passenger rail corridor, no impacts to 

community facilities are anticipated as the proposed rail is located within the NYS Thruway rightof-way. However, there are several impacts to community facilities anticipated in this section as 

noted below.

In Schenectady County, Whispering Pines Golf Course at MP QH158 may be impacted by Alternative 

125. Just before MP QH161, Alternative 125 passes through Holy Cross Cemetery and just south of 

St. Cyril Cemetery. There would be potential impacts to Holy Cross Cemetery, and potential impacts 

to St. Cyril Cemetery may also occur for Alternative 125.

In Montgomery County, Alternative 125 passes through, and would impact, the Canajoharie 

Country Club at MP QH194. At MP QH198, it passes close to Hickory Acres Airport, but no impacts 

to this facility are anticipated.

In Herkimer County, Alternative 125 crosses Doty’s Golf Course just west of MP QH218 between 

Forge Hill Drive (MP QH218.2) and County Road 14 (MP QH218.7) in the Town of German Flatts. 

Just after crossing the Seneca Turnpike in Oneida County, Alternative 125 crosses through the 

northern corner of the Skenandoa Golf Club between MPs QH237.6 and QH237 and extends 

through the southwest corner of Westmoreland Golf Course between MPs QH238.7 and QH238.9 in 

the Town of Westmoreland. 

In Madison County, Alternative 125 extends within close proximity to water supply facilities for the 

City of Oneida. Alternative 125 passes through Lenox Rural Cemetery just west of MP QH256, 

which would be impacted by this alternative. At approximate MP QH262.5, this alternative passes 

through a ballfield at the Bolivar Road School within the Town of Sullivan. 

In Onondaga County, the alignment merges with the existing Empire Corridor. Just before the 

merge, between MPs QH267 and QH268, Alternative 125 may impact the Old Oak Golf Club within 

the Town of Manlius as the rail passes just north of the golf course. Alternative 125 extends 

through 16 miles of urban area surrounding the City of Syracuse. Depending on the design of the 

elevated railroad structure over the existing railroad, there may be right-of-way impacts, the extent 

of which would be determined in Tier 2. Just before Alternative 125 diverges from the existing 

Empire Corridor again, the rail passes near Most Holy Rosary Cemetery, but since this is on the 

existing Empire Corridor and within the existing right-of-way, no impacts to the cemetery are 

anticipated. 

At MP QH284, Alternative 125 diverges from the existing Empire Corridor and continues on a new 

alignment 61 miles west to a point 11 miles east of Rochester Station in Monroe County. 

Alternative 125 passes directly through and would impact Camillus Airport between MPs QH284.5 

and QH285 in Onondaga County. Alternative 125 passes directly north of the tourist information 

center and rest stop on the New York State Thruway (I-90), but no impacts to this facility are 

anticipated. 

Page 4-40 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

In Monroe County, near the border with Wayne County at MP QH343, Alternative 125 would pass 

through the southwest corner of Perinton Golf and Country Club at Macedon Center Road and may 

impact this facility. Alternative 125 merges with the existing Empire Corridor at MP QH346, 

continuing on the existing corridor through areas outside of Rochester and through the downtown 

area. Depending on the design of the elevated railroad structure over the existing railroad, there 

may be right-of-way impacts, the extent of which would be determined in Tier 2. Alternative 125 

diverges again at MP QH361, 5.5 miles west of Rochester Station, to continue on new alignment 52 

miles west to Buffalo in Erie County.

In Erie County, Alternative 125 passes through Clarence Fillmore Cemetery just beyond MP QH408. 

Just past MP QH413, as the new rail corridor rejoins the Empire Corridor, Alternative 125 passes 

the Walden Golf Driving Range to the north, but no impacts to this facility are anticipated. 

Depending on the design of the elevated railroad structure over the existing railroad extending to 

the Buffalo Exchange Street Station, there may be right-of-way impacts, the extent of which would 

be determined in Tier 2. 

In Niagara County, Alternative 125 passes along the northeast edge of the Niagara International 

Airport between MPs QDN21 and QDN23. Between MPs QDN23 and QDN25, Alternative 125 

passes near Niagara Town Hall, Niagara Town Court, Niagara Active Hose Company House, and the 

Niagara Presbyterian Church; however, impacts to these facilities, including the airport, are not 

anticipated.

4.5.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During Tier 2, the design will be refined to avoid or minimize impacts on community facilities to the 

extent feasible Consultation with local officials and property owners will be performed and if 

appropriate, relocation planning and assistance will be provided during Tier 2. Other 

considerations will include the visual and noise impacts on adjoining or affected community 

facilities, and further assessments of these impacts will also be advanced in Tier 2.

4.5.6. Future Analysis

The Tier 2 assessments will include a thorough inventory of community facilities that may be 

affected, including water supplies, municipal buildings, offices, schools, libraries, and other cultural 

institutions. Detailed property mapping and information on ownership and the extent of public use 

of community facilities in the vicinity of the program will be obtained. Consultation with public 

officials and property owners/officials with jurisdiction will be performed regarding potential 

impacts and mitigation measures. If appropriate, relocation planning and studies will be performed 

as part of Tier 2, and relocation assistance provided in compliance with the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-41

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.6. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

4.6.1. Regulatory Context

The U.S. Clean Water Act (1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) is the 

cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States and provides for the regulation 

of the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S.64 

Section 303(d) of the U.S. Clean Water Act requires states, as part of required periodic assessment 

and reporting, to identify Impaired Waters, where specific designated uses are not fully supported. 

For these Impaired Waters, states must consider the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) or other strategy to reduce the input of the specific pollutant(s). The New York State 

Section 303(d) List of Impaired TMDL Waters identifies those waters that do not support 

appropriate uses and details the type, cause/pollutant, source, and class of impairment.65 

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act also established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit program. Under this program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) has regulatory authority over point source discharges on a sector-wide basis to protect 

water quality of the receiving waters and can designate permitting authority to the states. Point 

sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

Article 17 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) entitled "Water Pollution 

Control" was enacted to protect water resources and authorized creation of the State Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program.66 The program is designed to eliminate the 

pollution of New York waters and to maintain the highest quality of water possible. 

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) also sets water quality 

standards for surface waters as part of its Protection of Waters Regulatory Program 

(Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15). All waters of the state are provided a class and 

standard designation that denotes their existing or best uses for freshwaters (classes A, B, C, and D) 

and saline or marine waters (classes SA, SB, SC, I, and SD).67 In general, these ranking are assigned 

as follows:

• The classification AA or A is assigned to waters used as a source of drinking water.

• Classification B indicates a best usage for swimming and other contact recreation, but not for 

drinking water.

• Classification C is for waters supporting fisheries and suitable for non - contact activities.

• The lowest classification and standard is D.

64/ Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (2002). Retrieved from <http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf> 65/ The most recent list is the Final New York State 2010 Section 303(d) List which was approved in June 2010. The list can be accessed 

on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) website. The FINAL New York State 2010 Section 303(d) 

List of Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL/Other Strategy, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlistfinal10.pdf> 66/ New York ECL – Article 17, Title 8 – “State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System”, Accessed September 15, 2011, < 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6308.html> 67/ NYSDEC, “ECL §3-0301 and §24-1301, Chapter X-Division of Water, Part 701 Classifications-Surface Waters and Groundwaters.” 

Accessed April 18, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4592.html>

Page 4-42 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Additional classifications of “T" or "TS" denotes if a water body has sufficient amounts of dissolved 

oxygen to support trout and trout spawning. Small ponds and lakes with a surface area of 10 acres 

or less, located within the course of a stream, are considered to be part of a stream and are subject 

to regulation under the stream protection category of Protection of Waters. The letter 

classifications and their best uses are described in Exhibit 4-11. 

Protected streams are streams and small water bodies along streams that are designated as C(T) 

(trout supporting waters) or higher (i.e., C(TS), B, or A) and are subject to the stream protection 

provisions of the NYSDEC Protection of Waters regulations. New York City also implements a Longterm Watershed Protection program under the ECL, Article 15.68

In addition to the above regulations, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 

Environmental Manual (TEM), Chapter 4 Water and Ecology, provides guidance for NYSDOT’s 

procedures regarding water and water quality for NYSDOT transportation projects.69

Exhibit 4-11—NYSDEC Surface Water Quality Classifications

Water 

Quality 

Class

Designated Uses

Marine Water Designations

SA

The best usages of these waters are shellfishing for market purposes, primary and secondary contact 

recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and 

survival.

SB The best usages of these waters are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters 

shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival.

I The best usages of these waters are secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable 

for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival.

SC

The best usage for these waters is fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

propagation and survival. The water quality is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, 

although other factors may limit the use for these purposes.

Surface Water Designations

A-S

The best usages for these waters are: source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing 

purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The water quality is suitable for fish 

propagation and survival. This classification is for international boundary waters.

A The best usages for these waters are the same as for Class/Standard A-S.

B The best usages for these waters are for primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. The water 

quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival.

C

The best usage for these waters is fishing. Water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival. The 

water quality is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the 

use for these purposes.

C(t)

The best usage for these waters is fishing. The water quality is suitable for trout propagation and survival. 

Water quality is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may list the 

use for these purposes.

C(ts) The best usage for these waters is the same as for Class C(t) and is also suitable for trout spawning. 

68/ NYSDEC, “Protection of Waters Program, ECL, Article 15, Implementing Regulations, 6 NYCRR PART 608.” Accessed September 15, 

2011. < http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6042.html> 69/ NYSDOT, “Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 4-Water and Ecology”, Accessed September 15, 2011 < 

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and-guidance/epm/chapter-4>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-43

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.6.2. Methodology

Surface water crossings of all alternatives were identified using existing mapping collected from 

federal and state agencies. Geographic Information System (GIS) data and other available 

information were compiled from the United States Geological Survey, the New York State GIS 

Clearinghouse, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Data sets used 

included NYSGIS hydrography, NYSDEC water quality classifications, and NYSDEC water 

inventory/priority waterbodies (impaired waters) list. Crossings were listed by approximate 

milepost for each alternative (Appendix G). Alternative improvements based on mileposts were 

then used to tally the total potential crossings of surface waters for each alternative.

4.6.3. Existing Conditions

Overview

Watersheds

New York State consists of 17 major drainage basins.70 The six basins located in the water 

resources study area of the Empire Corridor are the Lower Hudson River Basin, Mohawk River 

Basin, Oswego/Finger Lakes Basin, Lake Ontario Tributaries Basin, Genesee River Basin, and the 

Niagara River/Lake Erie Basin. 

The Lower Hudson River watershed is 12,800 square miles in size and is primarily located within 

New York State, with small portions in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont. 

Approximately 32 percent (roughly 17.06 square miles) of the existing Empire Corridor (90/110 

Study Area) and 37 percent (roughly 18.82 square miles) of the 125 Study Area are located in the 

Lower Hudson River watershed. This watershed encompasses the study area in New York, Bronx, 

Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia, Rensselaer and parts of Albany Counties. 

The Mohawk River watershed is located entirely within New York State and consists of 3,460 

square miles. Approximately 22 percent (roughly 11.37 square miles) of the existing Empire 

Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and 17 percent (roughly 8.52 square miles) of the 125 Study Area 

are located in the Mohawk River watershed. This watershed covers the study area in Albany, 

Schenectady, Montgomery, Herkimer and parts of Oneida Counties. 

The Oswego River/ Finger Lakes watershed is one of the state’s largest watersheds, consisting of 

5,070 square miles entirely within the state. Approximately 23 percent (roughly 12.03 square 

miles) of the existing Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and 21 percent (roughly 10.62 square 

miles) of the 125 Study Area are located in the Oswego/Finger Lakes watershed. This watershed 

encompasses the study area in Oneida, Madison, Onondaga, Cayuga and Wayne Counties. 

The Lake Ontario and Minor Tributaries watershed is approximately 2,460 square miles within 

New York State. Approximately 3 percent (roughly 1.57 square miles) of the existing Empire 

Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and 7 percent (roughly 3.56 square miles) of the 125 Study Area are 

located in the Lake Ontario and Minor Tributaries watershed, and is found only in the eastern part 

70/ NYSDEC, Watersheds, Lakes, Rivers. Accessed April 18, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26561.html>

Page 4-44 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

of Monroe County in the Empire Corridor study area.

The upper 15 miles of the Genesee River watershed are located in the Allegheny Plateau in 

northern Pennsylvania; however, the majority of the watershed (2,373 square miles) is located in 

New York State. Approximately 6 percent (roughly 3.46 square miles) of the existing Empire 

Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and 6 percent (roughly 3.17 square miles) of the 125 Study Area are 

located in the Genesee River Watershed. This watershed encompasses the study area in the 

western part of Monroe County and eastern part of Genesee County. 

The westernmost watershed in the Empire Corridor is the Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed. The 

Niagara River drains an area of more than 265,000 square miles of the north-central United States 

and south-central Canada. The drainage area outside of New York State includes four of the five 

Great Lakes. The size of this watershed within New York State is approximately 2,280 square miles, 

and approximately 14 percent (roughly 7.28 square miles) of the existing Empire Corridor (90/110 

Study Area) and 12 percent (roughly 6.37 square miles) of the 125 Study Area are located in the 

Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed. This watershed encompasses the western part of Genesee 

County and Erie and Niagara Counties in the Empire Corridor study area.

New York State Canal System

The 294-mile section of Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (90/110 Study Area) between 

Albany (Albany County) and Buffalo (Erie County) crosses, closely adjoins, or follows the New York 

State Canal System in a number of locations. The Erie Canal was originally constructed in the early 

1800’s to transport goods from Lake Erie to the Hudson River. This system was constructed and 

enlarged over time to accommodate larger barges, with the most recent improvements made in the 

early 1900’s. The modern-day New York State Canal System links the Hudson River, the Finger 

Lakes, Lake Champlain, Lake Ontario, and the Niagara River with communities throughout the state. 

There are four canals that make up the New York State Canal System (formerly called the New York 

State Barge Canal): 

• The Erie Canal (the main canal between Hudson River and Lake Erie/Niagara River that flows 

through Oneida Lake and Onondaga Lake), 

• The Champlain Canal (which follows and then extends north from the Hudson River to Lake 

Champlain on the New York-Vermont border),

• The Cayuga-Seneca Canal (which extends south to Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake), and 

• The Oswego Canal (a branch extending north Erie Canal north of Syracuse to Lake Ontario).

The railroad crosses the Erie Canal several times along the Empire Corridor West. The easternmost 

crossing occurs west of the Schenectady Station (MP 160), and the canal continues to meander 

along the railroad until just past the Rome Station (MP 252), where it leaves the railroad and heads 

northeast to Oneida Lake. Along this section, the canal is also part of the Mohawk River as it passes 

through the counties of Schenectady, Montgomery, and Herkimer, where the canal splits off and 

continues to follow the tracks west through Oneida County. The Erie Canal crosses the railroad 

again at roughly MP 319.5 (as part of the Seneca River) in Cayuga County, before heading south to 

Cayuga Lake. The canal borders the railroad in Wayne County, east of the Town of Clyde (MP 327), 

and meanders north and south of the railroad through Wayne and Monroe Counties before heading 

north away from the railroad until it crosses the railroad for the final time in the Town of 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-45

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-46 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Tonawanda	(MP	QDN13.5).	

Remnants	 of	 the	Old	 Erie	 Canal,	which	was	 bypassed	 by	 the	 construction	 of	 the	New	 York	 Canal	

System,	 remain	 in	 portions	 of	 the	 study	 area	 in	 Madison	 and	 Onondaga	 Counties.	 	 The	 Old	 Erie	

Canal	parallels	the	tracks	through	the	eastern	half	of	Madison	County,	before	crossing	the	railroad	

at	MP	272	and	crosses	the	railroad	again	in	Onondaga	County	at	MPs	302.5	to	303.			

Surface Waterway Crossings

The	 464‐mile	 section	 of	 the	existing	 Empire	 Corridor	 (90/110	Study	Area)	 crosses	a	 total	 of	 287	

tributaries	 and	 waterways	 along	 its	 length,	 including	 the	 Harlem	 River,	 Hudson	 River,	 Mohawk	

River,	Erie	Canal,	Genesee	River,	and	Seneca	River	and	tributaries	to	these	rivers.		The	450‐mile	125	

Study	 Area	 crosses	 a	 total	 of	 378	 tributaries	 and	 waterways.	 	 Of	 these	 crossings,	 105‐106	 are	

located	along	Empire	Corridor	South,	south	of	and	including	Rensselaer	County	to	Manhattan.	

Exhibit	4‐12 shows	 the	number	of	waterbodies	crossed	in	each	county	 for	both	corridors	and	 the	

number	that	are	considered	to	be	an	impaired/priority	waterway	(under	Section	303(d)	of	the	U.S.	

Clean	 Water	 Act)	 and	 those	 that	 are	 classified	 as	 protected	 streams	 (designated	 as	 C(T)	 (trout	

supporting	waters)	or	higher	(i.e.,	C(TS),	B,	or	A)	under	the	NYSDEC	Protection	of	Waters		

Exhibit 4-12—Empire Corridor Surface Waterway Crossings in the Study Area 

County   Number of Surface

Waterway Crossings

Number of Impaired (303d)/

Priority Water Number of Protected Waters

90/110  

Study Area

125

Study Area

90/110

Study Area

125

Study Area

90/110  

Study Area

125

Study Area

New York 1	 1	 1	 1	 0	 0	

Bronx 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	

Westchester 23	 23	 11	 11	 18	 18	

Putnam 12	 12	 9	 9	 11	 11	

Dutchess 38	 38	 28	 28	 34	 34	

Columbia 22	 22	 19	 19	 14	 14	

Rensselaer 10	 9	 7	 6	 0	 0	

Albany 4	 3	 3	 2	 2	 2	

Schenectady 9	 18	 9	 15	 2	 3	

Schoharie   0	 9	 0	 9	 0	 0	

Montgomery 35	 21	 35	 21	 10	 1	

Herkimer 19	 39	 19	 37	 4	 15	

Oneida 12	 18	 12	 18	 4	 7	

Madison 11	 20	 11	 20	 4	 5	

Onondaga 16	 20	 13	 15	 4	 5	

Cayuga 5	 15	 5	 12	 0	 1	

Wayne 18	 43	 18	 42	 5	 3	

Monroe 19	 23	 18	 18	 6	 9	

Genesee 17	 25	 16	 22	 4	 1	

Erie 7	 10	 6	 6	 3	 2	

Niagara 9	 9	 8	 8	 0	 0	

Note:	The	90/110	Study	Area	is	used	for	analysis	of	Alternatives	90A,	90B,	and	110	and	consists	of	the	existing	464‐mile	long	

Empire	Corridor	alignment.	The	125	Study	Area	is	used	for	analysis	of	Alternative	125	and	consists	of	portions	of	the	existing

Empire	Corridor	and	new	alignment	and	is	450	miles	long.	The	study	area	width	is	defined	as	being	within	300	feet	of	the	program	

centerline	

Source:		NY	GIS	Clearinghouse,	2011;	NYSDEC	GIS	Data,	2011	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

regulations. There are a total of 248 impaired/priority waterways along the 90/110 Study Area, 

compared to 319 impaired/priority waterways along the 125 Study Area. Of these, 74 to 75 are 

along Empire Corridor South. There are 125 protected waters along the 90/110 Study Area, and 

131 protected waters along the 125 Study Area. Of these, 77 are along the Empire Corridor South. 

Exhibits G-4, G-5, and G-6 in Appendix G presents a detailed listing of the waterways crossed in 

each county and their classification as an impaired/priority waterway or as a protected waterway. 

These exhibits also list the 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants related to construction, as 

specified in the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction 

Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001), January 29, 2010, and pollutants of concern for municipal 

separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), as specified in the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from MS4s (Permit No. GP-0-10-002), October 14, 2011. The watersheds and 

waterbodies crossed and their classifications (as impaired priority water or protected water) in 

each county for each program corridor are described in detail in Appendix G.6. 

4.6.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe impacts of program alternatives to surface waters. Direct impacts 

would generally occur in areas where the surface water underlies, or is located immediately 

adjacent to the proposed track activities. Proposed activities that would have a higher potential to 

directly impact existing surface water resources may include the construction of new tracks 

immediately adjacent or over waterways, bridge construction and/or culvert improvements, rock 

slope stabilization adjacent to waterways, and embankment improvements. In general, actions that 

would constitute direct impacts include the destruction or alteration of all or part of the surface 

water through diversion, channelization, embankments construction, dredging, filling, or other 

direct modifications of the waterway. In addition, direct impacts include the deterioration of the 

surface water quality through the direct discharge of pollutants and/or sediment to the waterway 

during construction (i.e., releases from equipment, sediment runoff) and/or operational activities 

(i.e., increased train traffic could generate additional surface and air particulates, which could settle 

in surface waters).

The Base Alternative and Alternative 90A would have the least impacts to surface waters because of 

fewer proposed improvement areas occurring over, or adjacent to, waterways. In addition, these 

alternatives would involve work largely within the right-of-way, with tracks being added in the 

location of the former track beds or existing access roads. Alternatives 90B and 110 would have 

greater potential to impact surface waters and water quality in more locations than the Base 

Alternative or Alternative 90A, especially where new third and fourth track construction would 

occur over, or adjacent to, waterways. Alternative 125 would involve the greatest impacts to 

surface waters and water quality as it extends primarily on new alignment throughout the Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch. 

This preliminary assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and would be further refined 

in Tier 2 as the project development process is further advanced, and efforts to avoid surface water 

alterations would be made as design is advanced. The sections below identify the areas where 

improvements or new track will be constructed in, or adjacent to, surface waters. There would be 

potential impacts, as described above, at all crossings; however, the specifics of impacts will be 

documented as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-47

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. Improvements from this alternative will have approximately 68 surface 

water crossings.

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative includes signal and grade-crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. The alignment in this segment will have approximately 51 water crossings and will be 

within, or adjacent to, the Hudson River for the majority of the proposed improvement areas. 

Signal improvements will not likely impact surface waters in these areas; however, any drainage 

reconfigurations or increase in impervious surfaces at the grade crossing improvements could have 

the potential to change water quality within the area.

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at 

Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (MPs 141 to 143). These improvements will cross 

three waterways, and depending on design, could have the potential to change water quality within 

the area.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

There are several projects for the Base Alternative in the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch. 

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady Stations, as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station. The affected portions of 

Albany and Schenectady Counties will cross approximately 10 streams. Therefore, depending on 

design, these improvements could have the potential to impact surface waters and water quality. 

The proposed Syracuse track configuration and signal improvements area (MPs 287 to 291) will 

cross approximately two waterways. The Base Alternative also includes Rochester Station track 

and platform improvements (MPs 368 to 373), which will cross two surface waters including the 

Genesee River. Therefore, depending on design, these improvements could have the potential to 

impact surface waters and water quality. 

Proposed improvements for the new Niagara Falls Intermodal Transportation Center will not take 

place over any waterways, and will not likely involve impacts to surface waters and/or water 

quality in this area.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, and signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. 

Improvements from this alternative would have approximately 107 surface water crossings.

Page 4-48 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A would include construction of four miles of second track through urbanized areas 

of Manhattan (MPs 9 to 13), and 1.4 miles (MPs 23.8 to 25.2) of new track, extending under the 

Tappan Zee Bridge, for the Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking. Both projects would occur over 

waterways associated with the tributaries of the Hudson River, including the Harlem River at MP 

10. In addition, the rail line would be located directly adjacent to the Hudson River in these 

improvement areas. Therefore, depending on design, these improvements could have the potential 

to impact surface waters and water quality. 

With Alternative 90A, there would be signal improvements proposed along 43 miles (MPs 32.8 and 

75.8). In addition, along this section there would be 10 miles of new third track (MPs 53 to 63) and 

there would be improvements at the Poughkeepsie Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 75.8). North 

of Poughkeepsie and south of Albany-Rensselaer Station (MPs 75.8 to 140), proposed 

improvements would also include rock slope stabilization (MPs 105 to 130) and three new control 

points (CP 82, CP 99, and CP 136), as well as station improvements at Rhinecliff Station (high-level 

platforms) and Hudson Station (new Ferry Street Bridge and track realignments). In addition, the 

rail line would be located directly adjacent to the Hudson River in these improvement areas. 

Therefore, depending on design, these improvements could have the potential to impact surface 

waters and water quality. Impacts to surface waters and water quality would be more likely in 

areas where there would be new track construction. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 90A would also include replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would pass 

over the Hudson River at the Rensselaer/Albany County Line; therefore, work on this bridge could 

have the potential to impact surface water and water quality associated with the Hudson River. 

With Alternative 90A, track improvements would include 10 miles of third track between MPs 169 

and 179, and Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this segment. This entire 10-

mile segment would closely adjoin the banks of the Mohawk River and would cross approximately 

nine waterways. Although impacts in these areas could be contained within the current right-ofway, there would still be potential for minimal impact of surface waters and water quality.

West of MP 175, work extending west to MP 295 would consist of upgrading interlocking, 

automatic block signals, and control points. Alternative 90A would also include Syracuse Station 

track improvements (MPs 290 to 294) within this improvement segment. The alignment would 

continue to closely adjoin the banks of the Mohawk River and Erie Canal through MP 253. In 

addition to three crossings already included in the 10 miles of third track improvements mentioned 

above, the alignment would cross approximately 27 waterways between MPs 175 and 295. 

Although work would consist of upgrading signals, control points and interlocking, and this work 

would be performed within the current right-of-way, it could minimally impact surface waters and 

water quality within improvement areas. 

Alternative 90A would include third track improvements along nine miles (MPs 373 to 382) west of 

Rochester station. Alternative 90A would also include the addition of a third track along 11 miles 

(MPs 382 to 393) in western Monroe and eastern Genesee Counties. Together, these improvements 

would cross approximately 16 streams. Depending on design, the proposed third track 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-49

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

improvements west of the Rochester Station, these track improvements west of the station could 

have the potential to impact surface waters and water quality.

Station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 429.5 to 432.5) would not cross any 

waterways, and would be anticipated to have no impact on surface waters or water quality. 

However, the proposed double track (MPs QDN17 to QDN23.2) and Niagara Falls track 

improvements (MPs QDN25 to QDN28) could have the potential to impact surface waters and water 

quality associated with seven waterway crossings.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed. 

Improvements from this alternative would have approximately 219 surface water crossings.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

would be proposed and additional surface waters impacts would not be anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 90B would include replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would pass 

over the Hudson River at the Rensselaer/Albany County Line; therefore, work on this bridge could 

have the potential to impact surface water and water quality associated with the Hudson River. 

Third and fourth track improvements for Alternative 90B would start at MP 160 in the City of 

Schenectady, and extend west to MP 430, east of Buffalo and would have the potential to impact 

surface waters and water quality associated with approximately 164 waterways. In Schenectady 

County, additional track and improvements to the Schenectady Station included in Alternative 90B 

would cross approximately eight waterways. The Mohawk River, which would cross the alignment 

at MP 160, would closely adjoin the rail line from approximately MP 166 to the county line (MP 

169.5). Other major waterways include Collins Creek, Washout Creek, Verf Kill, and 

Chaughtanoonda Creek. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly 

impact these surface water features and their water quality from the construction of new track, 

station improvements, and increased train traffic.

The railroad would continue to adjoin the north bank of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal through all 

of Montgomery County, largely remaining within 50 to 1,000 feet of the river/canal. In addition, 

there would be approximately 35 waterway crossings, primarily over tributaries of the Mohawk 

River including Compaanen Kill, Cranes Hollow Creek, Degraff Creek, North Chuctanunda Creek, 

McQueen Creek, Danascara Creek, Cayadetta Creek, Briggs Run, Knauderack Creek, Caroga Creek, 

Mother Creek, Timmerman Creek, Zimmerman Creek and Crum Creek. Depending on design, there 

would be potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface water features and their water 

quality from the construction of new track, improvements to the Amsterdam Station, and increased 

train traffic.

Page 4-50 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The railroad would continue to adjoin the north bank of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal through all 

of Herkimer County. In addition, there would be approximately 19 waterway crossings, primarily 

over tributaries of the Mohawk River including East Canada Creek, Beaver Brook, West Canada 

Creek, Bridenbecker Creek and Ferguson Creek. Depending on design, there would be potential to 

directly or indirectly impact these surface water features and their water quality from the 

construction of new track and increased train traffic.

Alternative 90B would extend through Oneida County, paralleling the Erie Canal/Mohawk River 

between Utica and Rome before diverging west to flow into Oneida Lake. New track would cross 

approximately 12 waterways in this county. Improvements to the Utica and Rome Stations would 

also be included with Alternative 90B. In addition to the Mohawk River, Alternative 90B would 

cross Sauquoit Creek, Oriskany Creek, Mud Creek, and Stony Creek. Depending on design, there 

would be potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface water features and their water 

quality from the construction of new track, improvements to two stations, and increased train 

traffic.

In Madison County, Alternative 90B new track would cross 11 waterways. Entering the county, the 

alternative would cross Oneida Creek and continue west crossing drainages such as Cowaselon 

Creek, Dutch Settlement Creek, the Old Erie Canal/Owlville Creek, Canaseraga Creek and 

Chittenango Creek. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact 

these surface water features and their water quality from the construction of new track and 

increased train traffic.

There would be 16 waterway crossings that the proposed new track of Alternative 90B would 

traverse in Onondaga County. The alignment would enter the eastern portion of the county and 

cross Pools Brook. It would then continue west crossing drainages such Lake Brook, Limestone 

Creek, Butternut Creek, the South Branch Ley Creek, the Barge Canal, the southern shores of 

Onondaga Lake, Geddes Brook, Nine Mile Creek, White Bottom Creek, Carpenters Brook, and 

Skaneateles Creek. Improvements to the Syracuse Station would also be included with Alternative 

90B. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface 

water features and their water quality from the construction of new track, Syracuse Station 

improvements, and increased train traffic.

In Cayuga County, Alternative 90B new track would cross approximately five waterways including 

Putnam and Spring Brooks, Owasco Outlet, Swamp Brook, and the Seneca River. There would be 

approximately 18 water crossings in Wayne County including drainages such as Black Creek, the 

Erie Canal, Ganargua Creek, Red Creek, and several unnamed tributaries to these water features. 

Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface water 

features and their water quality from the construction of new track and increased train traffic.

New track proposed with Alternative 90B would cross 19 waterway crossings in Monroe County, 

including drainages such as Thomas Creek, Irondequoit Creek, Allen Creek, the Genesee River, the 

Erie Canal, Little Black Creek and Black Creek. Improvements to the Rochester Station would also 

be included with Alternative 90B. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or 

indirectly impact these surface water features and their water quality from the construction of new 

track, Syracuse Station improvements, and increased train traffic.

Alternative 90B would cross approximately 17 waterways in Genesee County. The new track would 

traverse drainages such as Black Creek and its tributaries, Tonawanda Creek, and Murder Creek 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-51

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

and its tributaries. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact 

these surface water features and their water quality from the construction of new track and 

increased train traffic.

Alternative 90B third track improvements would cross three surface waters including Ellicott Creek 

(MP 422.5) in Erie County. The double track along the Niagara Branch between MPs QDN 2 and 7 

would extend in proximity to the waterfront along Lake Erie and the Black Rock Canal along the 

Niagara River and would cross Scajaquada Creek. Depending on design, there would be potential to 

directly or indirectly impact these surface water features and their water quality from the 

construction of new track and increased train traffic. No other impacts other than described in 

Alternative 90A would be anticipated for the remainder of Erie or Niagara Counties.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Improvements from this alternative would have approximately 218 surface water crossings.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed and additional surface waters impacts would not be anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, track realignments and third and fourth track improvements would traverse 

the same surface water features as described in Alternatives 90A and 90B with the exception of the 

crossing in Erie County of Scajaquada Creek (MP QDN6). No double track is proposed in that area 

for Alternative 110. No other impacts other than those described above for Alternatives 90A and 

90B would be anticipated for Alternative 110.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

Page 4-52 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

River. Depending on design of the new bridge for this crossing, there would be potential to directly 

or indirectly impact these surface water features and their water quality from the construction of 

the bridge.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

After crossing the Hudson River, Alternative 125 would extend through Albany and Schenectady 

Counties over a distance of 20 miles, primarily following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) 

over most of this distance. In Albany County, Alternative 125 would cross three waterways: the 

Hudson River, and two crossings at Krum Kill. In addition to these crossings, there would also be 

one crossing in Albany County associated with Alternative 90A improvements of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River. In Schenectady and Schoharie Counties, Alternative 125 

would cross approximately 27 water features, including drainages such as Bonny Brook, Schoharie 

Creek and Fly Creek. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact 

these surface water features and their water quality from the construction of new track and 

increased train traffic. In addition in Schenectady County, Alternative 90A improvements would 

also occur under Alternative 125 and include one surface water crossing.

Alternative 125 would extend through Montgomery County, where there are approximately 21 

waterway crossings, including Fly Creek, Flat Creek, Canajoharie Creek, and numerous unnamed 

tributaries. Alternative 90A improvements that would also occur under Alternative 125 would 

include 28 surface water crossings in Montgomery County. In Herkimer County, Alternative 125 

would cross approximately 39 waterways including drainages such as Otsquago Creek, Ohisha 

Creek, Fulmer Creek, Steele Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Moyer Creek. Depending on 

design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface water features and 

their water quality from the construction of new track and increased train traffic.

In Oneida County, Alternative 125 would extend through primarily rural properties and cross 

approximately 18 mapped waterways. These include Palmer Creek, Sauquoit Creek, Sherman 

Brook, Oriskany Creek, Dean’s Creek and Sconondoa Creek. Alternative 125 would also extend 

through primarily rural properties in Madison County and would cross approximately 20 

waterways including Oneida Creek, Cowelson Creek, Canastota Creek, Owlville Creek and its 

tributaries, Canaseraga Creek, and Chittenango Creek. Depending on design, there would be 

potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface water features and their water quality from 

the construction of new track and increased train traffic.

In Onondaga County, Alternative 125 would merge with the existing Empire Corridor just before 

the City of Syracuse and would continue over the existing railroad on an elevated structure. 

Alternative 125 would extend through 16 miles of the city before diverging from the existing 

Empire Corridor and would continue on a new alignment for the remainder of the county. There 

would be approximately 20 water crossings in this county, six of which would be along the existing 

railroad through Syracuse. The alignment would cross drainages such as Pools Brook, the Old Erie 

Canal, Lake Brook, Limestone Creek, Butternut Creek, South Branch Ley Creek, the Barge Canal and 

south shores of Onondaga Lake, Geddes Brook, Nine Mile Creek, Dead Man Creek and the Seneca 

River. Depending on design, there would be potential to directly or indirectly impact these surface 

water features and their water quality from the construction of new track and increased train 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-53

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-54 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

traffic.	

In	 Cayuga	 County,	Alternative	 125	would	 cross	 15	waterways,	including	 the	Seneca	River	and	its	

tributaries,	Muskrat	Creek	and	Spring	Lake	Outlet.		In	Wayne	County,	Alternative	125	would	cross	

approximately	43	waterways	including	 the	drainages	of	Butler	Creek,	Wolcott	Creek,	Black	Creek,	

Sodus	 Creek,	 Red	 Creek,	 and	 numerous	 unnamed	 tributaries	 of	 the	 above‐mentioned	 streams.		

Depending	on	design,	there	would	be	potential	to	directly	or	indirectly	impact	these	surface	water	

features	and	their	water	quality	from	the	construction	of	new	track	and	increased	train	traffic.	

In	Monroe	County	Alternative	125	would	merge	with	the	existing	Empire	Corridor	through	the	City	

of	 Rochester	 and	 would	 continue	 over	 the	 existing	 railroad	 on	 an	 elevated	 structure,	 diverging	

again	5.5	miles	west	of	Rochester	Station	to	continue	on	new	alignment	through	the	remainder	of	

the	county.		Alternative	125	would	cross	23	waterways,	seven	of	which	would	be	along	the	existing	

railroad	through	Rochester.		Crossing	would	include	the	drainages	of	Thomas	Creek	and	several	of	

its	 tributaries,	 Irondequoit	 Creek,	 Allen	 Creek,	 the	 Genesee	 River,	 the	 Erie	 Canal	 and	 Little	 Black	

Creek.	 	 Improvements	 to	 the	 Rochester	 Station	 would	 also	 be	 included	 with	 Alternative	 125.	

Alternative	 90A	 improvements	 that	 would	 also	 occur	 under	 Alternative	 125	 would	 include	 14	

surface	water	crossings	in	Monroe	County.		

In	 Genesee	 County,	 Alternative	 125	 would	 extend	 through	 primarily	 rural	 properties	 and	 would	

cross	 approximately	 25	 mapped	 waterways.	 	 The	 alignment	 would	 cross	 Black	 Creek	 and	 its	

tributaries,	unnamed	tributaries	to	Spring	Creek,	Oak	Orchard	Creek	and	its	tributaries,	Tonawanda	

Creek,	 and	 Murder	 Creek	 and	 its	 tributaries.	 	 Depending	 on	 design,	 there	 would	 be	 potential	 to	

directly	 or	 indirectly	 impact	 these	 surface	 water	 features	 and	 their	 water	 quality	 from	 the	

construction	 of	 new	 track	 and	increased	 train	 traffic.	 	Alternative	 90A	improvements	 that	would	

also	occur	under	Alternative	125	would	include	two	surface	water	crossings	in	Genesee	County.	

New	 track	 proposed	 for	 Alternative	 125	 would	 cross	 six	 waterways	 in	 Erie	 County	 including	

Ransom	 Creek	 and	 Ellicott	 Creek.	 	 Depending	 on	 design,	 there	 would	 be	 potential	 to	 directly	 or	

indirectly	impact	these	surface	water	features	and	their	water	quality	from	the	construction	of	new	

track	and	increased	train	traffic.		No	other	impacts	other	than	described	in	Alternative	90A	would	

be	anticipated	for	the	remainder	of	Erie	or	Niagara	Counties.	

4.6.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During	Tier	2,	refinements	in	design	and	mapping	will	be	performed	and	the	project	development	

will	incorporate	avoidance	and	minimization	of	impact	to	surface	waters	and	water	quality	to	the	

extent	 practicable.	 	 The	 Tier	 1	 design	 has	 already	 incorporated	 minimization	 to	 some	 extent	

through	 use	 of	 retaining	 walls,	 such	 as	 adjacent	 to	 proposed	 flyovers,	 and	 track	 realignments	 to	

minimize	encroachment	on	adjoining	streams	and	properties.		However,	the	design	will	be	further	

advanced	 and	 defined	in	 Tier	 2.	 	 In	 Tier	 2,	means	 of	 avoiding	 and	minimizing	waterway	impacts	

through	shifts	in	location	of	tracks	and	other	facilities	and	use	of	design	measures	such	as	retaining	

walls	 or	 steeper	 slopes	will	 be	 further	evaluated	and	identified.	 	Other	 potential	mitigation	 to	 be	

considered	 will	 include	 permanent	 Best	 Management	 Practices	 (BMPs),	 such	 as	 stormwater	

treatment	 or	 detention/retention	 facilities	 or	 drainage	 channels/facilities	 where	 appropriate	 to	

improve	stormwater	management/flow	and	water	quality.	

In	 accordance	 with	 the	 NYSDEC	 State	 Pollutant	 Discharge	 Elimination	 System	 (SPDES)	 General	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001, effective 

January 29, 2010), construction projects that disturb more than an acre of land and that involve a 

stormwater discharge to surface waters of the United States, either indirectly through stormwater 

sewers or directly to waterways must prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). 

This plan will also meet the requirements set forth by the New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 

All NYSDOT projects that fall below SPDES thresholds are required to prepare erosion and 

sediment control plans. Application of BMPs identified in the SWPPPs or Erosion and Sediment 

Control (ESC) Plans will reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation resulting from 

construction activities. Temporary and permanent construction BMPs, such as seed, mulch, 

embankment protectors, grade techniques, inlet protection, silt fences, development of a Spill 

Prevention Control Plan (SPCC), Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) and vehicle tracking 

prevention will be used as appropriate. The design of permanent and temporary BMPs to improve 

the quality of stormwater runoff will be developed and designed in accordance with NYSDOT and 

NYSDEC criteria.

4.6.6. Future Analysis

During the Tier 2 assessments, program impact assessment based on design and site-specific 

mapping will occur to better define the extent of work and type of activities potentially affecting 

surface waters. The locations of protected streams and impaired (303(d))/priority waters that may 

require special consideration will also be better defined and mapped, particularly for those 

waterways impaired by pollutants related to construction or pollutants of concern for MS4s, as 

identified in the SPDES general permits. 

Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), stormwater discharges from certain 

construction activities are unlawful unless they are authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit or by a state permit program. New York’s SPDES is a NPDESapproved program with permits issued in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law 

(“ECL”). This general permit (“permit”) is issued pursuant to Article 17, Titles 7, 8 and Article 70 of 

the ECL. An owner or operator may obtain coverage under this permit by submitting a Notice of 

Intent ("NOI") to the Department. Projects that are ineligible for coverage under the general permit 

include projects with: 

• Discharges from construction activities that adversely affect a listed, or proposed to be listed, 

endangered or threatened species, or its critical habitat;

• Discharges that either cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards adopted 

pursuant to the ECL and its accompanying regulations;

• Construction activities for linear transportation projects and linear utility projects that:

o are tributary to waters of the state classified as AA or AA-s; and

o disturb two or more acres of land with no existing impervious cover and where the Soil 

Slope Phase is identified as an E or F on the USDA Soil Survey for the County in which the 

disturbance will occur.

Therefore, during the Tier 2 design and assessment, the SPDES permitting requirements will need 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-55

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

to be reviewed with respect to the proposed activities, in coordination with NYSDEC and the U.S. 

EPA. In general, NYSDOT construction projects should not result in or contribute to an exceedance 

of state water quality standards. For example, 6 NYCRR Part 703, Water Quality Regulations, 

contains water quality standards regarding turbidity that are of particular relevance to NYSDOT 

construction projects. The potential for impacts will be evaluated in accordance with NYSDOT 

Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 4.5, “Water Quality Standards and Assessment 

Methodologies.” 

A joint permit application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NYSDEC will be prepared and 

filed to obtain Section 10 (U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

and Section 404 Wetland Permit (U.S. Clean Water Act) and a NYS Protection of Waters permit, as 

applicable. The NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) could apply to this 

program relative to ECL Article 15 (Protection of Waters); the MOU states that NYSDOT does not 

need to obtain an individual Protection of Waters Permit, provided that NYSDOT conducts its 

environmental screening and NYSDEC consultation in accordance with the MOU.

. 

4.7. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

4.7.1. Regulatory Context

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve certain 

rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the 

enjoyment of present and future generations.71 Rivers may be designated by Congress or, if certain 

requirements are met, the Secretary of the Interior. Each river is administered by either a federal 

or state agency. Designated segments need not include the entire river and may include tributaries. 

For federally administered rivers, the designated boundaries generally average one-quarter mile on 

either bank in the lower 48 states and one-half mile on rivers outside national parks in Alaska in 

order to protect river-related values.

Rivers are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational and described below.

• Wild river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and

generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but

accessible in places by roads.

• Recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road

or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

The National Park Service (NPS) also publishes a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) list. The NRI 

list consists of some 2,400 miles of Inventory Rivers in New York State that are potentially eligible 

for inclusion in the National System and would also require a permit if impacted by a project. 

71/ Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) -- Public Law 90-542, approved October 2, 1968, (82 Stat. 906)

Page 4-56 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely affect 

one or more NRI segments. 72

In addition to the federal regulations above, the New York State Wild, Scenic and Recreational 

Rivers Act protects those rivers of the state that possess outstanding scenic, ecological, recreational, 

historic, and scientific values. These attributes may include value derived from fish and wildlife and 

botanical resources, aesthetic quality, archaeological significance and other cultural and historic 

features.

State policy is to preserve designated rivers in a free flowing condition, protecting them from 

improvident development and use. This policy is intended to preserve the enjoyment and benefits 

derived from these rivers for present and future generations.73

4.7.2. Methodology

National and State Wild, Scenic and Recreational rivers for study areas within 300 feet of the 

centerline for all alternatives were identified using existing mapping collected from federal and 

state agencies. National Wild and Scenic Rivers were identified using Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data provided by the U.S. Forest Service. The river segments listed on the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory were compared to the list of crossing waterways developed based on existing 

surface water mapping to identify the potential for impacts, which would be further researched as 

part of Tier 2. Existing surface water mapping was compared to the list of state-designated 

segments to identify state Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers.74 

4.7.3. Existing Conditions

Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South segment, from New York City to Rensselaer, extends 142 miles and in 

many locations closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River. There are numerous water 

resources in the Empire Corridor South segment, primarily dominated by the Lower Hudson River. 

The entire corridor in this segment is located in the Lower Hudson River Watershed. There are no 

mapped National Wild or Scenic Rivers in the Empire Corridor South segment. However, three 

segments of the Hudson River are listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The southernmost 

listed segment in Columbia, Dutchess, and Ulster Counties extends five miles north of Barrytown 

(near MP 95) to south of Malden-on-Hudson. There are two listed segments in Greene and 

Columbia Counties: a 4-mile segment extending north of Hudson (near MP 114.5) to south of 

Coxsackie and a 5-mile segment extending north of Coxsackie Island to above New Baltimore (near 

MP 128). 

The Hudson River is listed as a State Wild River for approximately 10.5 miles from the confluence of 

the Cedar River to the confluence with the Boreas River. However, this river segment is more than 

72/ National Park Service, 2011. “National Center for Recreation and Conservation, Nationwide Rivers Inventory”, 

<http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html>, website accessed February 2012. 73/ Article 15 Title 27, ECL- Implementing Regulations- 6 NYCRR PART 666. 74/ NYSDEC, “Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers.” Accessed October 3, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/32739.html>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-57

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

seven miles away from the program area. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The 322-mile long Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch passes through six watersheds in the 

study area. They are the Lower Hudson River Basin, Mohawk River Basin, Oswego/Finger Lakes 

Basin, Lake Ontario Tributaries Basin, Genesee River Basin, and the Niagara River/Lake Erie Basin. 

There are no mapped National Wild or Scenic Rivers in the Empire Corridor South segment. 

However, there are several segments listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory: an 8-mile section 

of the Mohawk River in Oneida that terminates to the north near the Empire Corridor (near MP 

250) in Stanwix and the Black Creek (MP 386) that crosses the Empire Corridor in Monroe County 

and Genesee County (MP 396.5). 

West Canada Creek is classified as a State Recreational River in Herkimer County, but it is more 

than 7 miles away from the program area. 

4.7.4. Environmental Consequences

No currently designated National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers were identified in the 

program study area. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have the potential to impact known 

designated National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers. However, there are river 

segments in the study area listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI). Three different 

segments of the Hudson River in Dutchess, Ulster, Columbia, and Greene Counties are listed on the 

NRI in areas adjoining work proposed under the Base, 90A, 110, and 125 Alternatives. No direct 

impacts on the river in these areas are anticipated.

Near Stanwix in Rome, a NRI-listed segment of the Mohawk River extends in close proximity 

(within 300 feet) to the Empire Corridor West where 13 miles of fourth track will be added with 

Alternative 110. No direct impacts on the Mohawk River is anticipated in this area.

The Black Creek, listed on the NRI, crosses the Empire Corridor at MP 386 in Monroe County, where 

11 miles of third track would be added under Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110. The Black Creek also 

crosses the Empire Corridor at MP 396.5, where 11 miles of fourth track would be added under 

Alternative 110. Although the additional tracks would be added in the location of former tracks, 

there is the potential for impact at both crossings of Black Creek.

When an alternative is selected and designs are developed in Tier 2, site-specific evaluations of the 

potential impacts on river segments listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory would be 

performed. 

4.7.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During the Tier 2 analysis, refinements in design and mapping will be performed and the 

development of project improvements will incorporate avoidance and minimization of impacts to 

potential or designated National Wild, Scenic, and Recreational rivers. Since there would be no 

anticipated impacts to designated National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers, mitigation 

Page 4-58 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

is not anticipated at this time. However, as discussed in the following section, additional research 

will be performed regarding potential impacts on the rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory, and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified in Tier 2.

4.7.6. Future Analysis

All work within in National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers would require permitting 

through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the state Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 

Act. There are three lists that will need to be re-consulted during the Tier 2 analysis for any change 

in status to National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers. First, the Tier 2 analysis should 

check updates of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers list. The Tier 2 analysis should check updates 

to the state list published by the NYSDEC. 

Lastly, the National Park Service (NPS) also publishes a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) list that 

will need to be consulted. The NRI list consists of some 2,400 miles of Inventory Rivers in New 

York State that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National System and would also require a 

permit if impacted by a project. The Tier 2 assessment will also incorporate a thorough review of 

crossings of rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 

A presidential directive requires each federal agency, as part of its normal planning and 

environmental review processes, to take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers 

identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory compiled by the National Park Service. Furthermore, 

all agencies are required to consult with the National Park Service prior to taking actions, which 

could effectively foreclose wild, scenic or recreational status for rivers on the inventory. If work is 

proposed that could alter or affect a river on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, the following steps 

may be required in Tier 2: 

• Determine whether the proposed action could affect an Inventory river and identify and 

analyze the environmental effects of their actions; 

• Determine whether the proposed action could have an adverse effect on the natural, cultural 

and recreational values of the Inventory river segment; 

• Consult with agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise (in this case, the National 

Park Service (NPS)); 

• Develop and study alternatives; 

• Determine whether the proposed action could foreclose options to classify any portion of the 

Inventory segment as wild, scenic, or recreation river areas; 

• Incorporate avoidance/mitigation measures into the proposed action to maximum extent 

feasible within the agency's authority and use all practicable means and measures to preserve 

important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-59

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.8. Navigable Waters

4.8.1. Regulatory Context

Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters was established through the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act. 

The U.S. General Bridge Act of 1946 delegated authority to the U.S. Coast Guard over regulation of 

construction of bridges (established under Section 9 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act75) in or over 

waters determined to be navigable by that agency.76 Section 10 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act 

Act grants the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory authority over work in, over, or under 

navigable waters, including wharfs, piers, and structures (excluding bridges and structures 

permitted by the USCG), and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, 

filling, or other modifications to navigable waters.77 

Under the state definition, navigable waters include lakes, rivers and other waterways and water 

bodies on which water vessels with a capacity of one or more persons are operated or can be 

operated.78 The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requires a 

Protection Of Waters Permit for excavating or placing fill in navigable waters of the state, below the 

mean high water level, including adjacent and contiguous marshes and wetlands. NYSDOT is not 

required to obtain Article 15 Protection of Waters permits, but is required to coordinate activities 

regulated by Article 15 with NYSDEC as per the “Memorandum of Understanding Between the New 

York State Department of Transportation and the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation Regarding ECL Articles 15 and 24.” The MOU states that NYSDOT does not need to 

obtain an individual Protection of Waters Permit, provided that NYSDOT conducts its 

environmental screening and NYSDEC consultation in accordance with the MOU.

Under state law, New York State also owns the land beneath large rivers and lakes, and the 

underwater holdings are managed by the New York State Office of General Services. Work within 

underwater lands may require approvals or easements for their use. In addition, the New York 

State Canal Corporation manages lands under and along the states canals and canalized rivers, 

including the Erie Canal, and has regulatory jurisdiction over activities in and along these 

waterways. 

4.8.2. Methodology

Navigable waters for study areas within 300 feet of the corridor centerline for all alternatives were 

identified using the published list of navigable waterways in the state from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers.79 In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard was consulted with regards to existing bridge permits 

over navigable waters within the study area. The U.S. Coast Guard, First Coast Guard District, in 

correspondence dated July 7, 2011, provided copies of bridge permits for five bridges along the 

Empire Corridor South, and the published list of navigable waterways for the Ninth (Buffalo) Coast 

75/ Section 9 of The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151) 76/ The General Bridge Act of 1946, 33 U.S.C. 525-533 and 33 U.S.C. 499. 77/ Section 10 of The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151) 78/ NYSDEC, “Excavation or Placement of Fill in Navigable Waters.” Accessed September 29, 2011. < 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6548.html> 79/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Navigable Waterways in Buffalo District Where Department of the Army Permits are Required, State 

of New York State.” Accessed September 9, 2011. <http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/regulatory/waterway_ny.pdf>

Page 4-60 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Guard District was also consulted.80 These various sources were used to identify navigable waters 

under federal jurisdiction crossed by or within 300 feet of the centerline of program alternatives. 

 

4.8.3. Existing Conditions

Federally regulated navigable waterways are generally defined as waters that provide a channel for 

commerce and transportation of people and goods. The Empire Corridor extends through New 

York State from New York City to Niagara Falls and crosses or parallels numerous waterways 

within the State that are considered by the U.S. ACE and U.S. Coast Guard to be navigable for all or 

part of their length. Navigable waterways in New York State primarily include rivers, streams, 

lakes and canals. Exhibit 4-13 lists the navigable waters within the 600-foot wide study area 

identified from published lists and bridge permits provided by the USCG, and Appendix G.7 

describes navigable waterways in each program segment. 

Along the 90/110 Study area, the rail corridor crosses 19 navigable waterways, and along the 125 

Study Area, the rail corridor would cross 12 navigable waterways. In many cases, these crossings 

are of the same waterbody, for instance, there are multiple crossings of the Erie Canal. In other 

instances, the rail corridor closely parallels navigable waterways, without crossing (such as the 

Hudson River along many segments of Empire Corridor South or the Erie Canal along portions of 

Empire Corridor West). 

4.8.4. Environmental Consequences

All alternatives have the potential to impact navigable waters as a result of construction in and 

around navigable waters. At this Tier 1 level, specific impacts are not known, but could include 

permanent impacts such as excavation for bridge piers and abutments, placement of fill and or 

riprap below the mean high water level or temporary construction impacts such as construction of 

access roads or staging for pier construction or placement of spans. Improvements for the Base 

Alternative and Alternative 125 have the least potential to impact the navigable waters. 

Alternatives 90B and 110 cross a greater number of navigable waterways and have the greatest 

potential for impacts to navigable waterways.

The sections below identify the areas where improvements and or new track will be constructed 

over navigable waters. There would be potential impacts, as described above, at all crossings; 

however, the specifics of impacts will be documented as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and it incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. 

80/ U.S. Coast Guard. “Ninth Coast Guard District Federally Navigable Waters by State,” updated March 2010. Accessed September 9,

2011. <http://www.uscg.mil/d9/D9Legal/water/new_york.pdf>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-61

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-62 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit 4-13—Navigable Waters in the Study Area 

County

River/Stream

Crossing

(Appx.

Milepost)1

Name

River/Stream

Crossing

(Appx.

Milepost)1

Name

90/110 Study Area 125 Study Area

New York   10	 Harlem	River	(Spuyten	Duyvil	Railroad	

Bridge)	

Hudson	River	

10	 Harlem	River	(Spuyten	Duyvil	Railroad	

Bridge)	

Hudson	River	

Bronx   Hudson	River	 Hudson	River	

Westchester   32.5‐33	

42	

Croton	Bay	(Metro‐North	Railroad	Bridge)	

Peekskill	Bay	(Metro‐North	Railroad	

Bridge)	

Hudson	River	

32.5‐33	

42	

Croton	Bay	(Metro‐North	Railroad	Bridge)	

Peekskill	Bay	(Metro‐North	Railroad	Bridge)	

Hudson	River	

Putnam   Hudson	River	 Hudson	River	

Dutchess   65	 Wappinger	Creek	(New	Hamburg	Railroad	

Bridge)	

Hudson	River	

65	 Wappinger	Creek	(New	Hamburg	Railroad	

Bridge)	

Hudson	River	

Columbia   Hudson	River	 Hudson	River	

Rensselaer   Hudson	River	 Hudson	River	

Albany   143	 Hudson	River	(Livingston	Avenue	Railroad	

Bridge)	

QH143.5	 Hudson	River	

Schenectady   160	 Mohawk	River/	Erie	Canal	 None	 NA	

Schoharie NA	 NA	 None	 NA	

Montgomery   Mohawk	River/Erie	Canal	 None	 NA	

Herkimer  

230‐231.5	

234	

Mohawk	River/Erie	Canal	

Erie	Canal	

Mohawk	River	

None	 NA	

Oneida   248.5	 Mohawk	River	

Erie	Canal	

None	 NA	

Madison   None	 NA	 None	 NA	

Onondaga   292	 Barge	Canal	

Onondaga	Lake	

QH278.5	 Barge	Canal	

Onondaga	Lake	

Cayuga   None	 NA	 None	 NA	

Wayne 328‐330	

335,	339.5	

Clyde	River/Erie	Canal	

Erie	Canal	

None	 NA	

Monroe   371.5	

374.5	

Genesee	River	

Erie	Canal	

QH356.75	

QH359	

Genesee	River	

Erie	Canal	

Genesee   None	 NA	 None	 NA	

Erie   422.5,	QDN12.5	

QDN6	

Ellicott	Creek	

Lake	Erie	

Scajaquada	Creek	

QH411.5	

QDN12.5	

QDN6	

Ellicott	Creek	

Ellicott	Creek	

Lake	Erie	

Scajaquada	Creek	

Niagara   QDN13.5	 Tonawanda	Creek/Erie	Canal	 QDN13.5	 Tonawanda	Creek/Erie	Canal	

Notes:	

1		Milepost	shown	if	stream/water	body	crosses	the	railroad.		If	not	shown,	water	bodies	are	within	the	300‐foot	buffer,	but	do	not	cross	the	

railroad.	

NA		Not	Applicable	

The	90/110	Study	Area	is	used	for	analysis	of	Alternatives	90A,	90B,	and	110	and	consists	of	the	existing	464‐mile	long	Empire	Corridor	alignment.	

The	125	Study	Area	is	used	for	analysis	of	Alternative	125	and	consists	of	portions	of	the	existing	Empire	Corridor	and	new	alignment	and	is	450	

miles	long.	The	study	area	width	is	defined	as	being	within	300	feet	of	the	corridor	centerline.		

Source:		U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers,	2011;	U.S.	Coast	Guard,	2011

Empire Corridor South

The	Base	 Alternative	 will	include	 signal	 and	 grade	 crossing	 improvements	 along	 the	 64	miles	 of	

Empire	 Corridor	 South	 (MPs	 75.8	 to	 140)	 north	 of	 Poughkeepsie	 to	 just	 south	 of	 the	 Albany‐

Rensselaer	Station.		The	 corridor	closely	adjoins	 the	Hudson	River	 (a	navigable	water)	along	 this	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

section of rail line; however, improvements will occur within the current right-of-way and impacts 

to the Hudson River will not be anticipated. 

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at 

Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (MPs 141 to 143). This improvement will not occur 

over navigable waters; therefore, impacts will not be anticipated. As the alignment crosses into 

Albany County, it will pass over the Hudson River across the Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations, as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station. There are two navigable 

waterways within this section of improvements. Reconstruction and track realignment at the 

Schenectady Station will occur over the Mohawk River. Work within the Mohawk River could have 

impacts on this waterways.

The proposed Syracuse track configuration and signal improvements area (MPs 287 to 291) will 

not cross any navigable waters and therefore will not be anticipated to impact this resource. 

Rochester Station track and platform improvements (MPs 368 to 373) will include a crossing of the 

Genesee River (MP 371.5). Improvements and construction activities at this crossing could result 

in permanent and temporary waterway impacts. Proposed improvements for the new Niagara Falls 

Intermodal Transportation Center will be located within an urban area and will not involve impacts 

to navigable waters.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvement projects to track, station, and 

signalization, in addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative.

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A would include construction of four miles of second track through urbanized areas 

of Manhattan (MPs 9 to 13), and 1.4 miles (MPs 23.8 to 25.2) of new track, extending under the 

Tappan Zee Bridge, for the Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking. The addition of a second track 

over the Harlem River at the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge (MP 10) for the above improvements 

could have waterway impacts. The alignment in these improvement areas would also closely adjoin 

the Hudson River; however, work would likely remain within the existing right-of-way and would 

be unlikely to impact the Hudson River waterway.

With Alternative 90A, signal improvements proposed along 43 miles (MPs 32.8 to 75.8) would 

cross the Hudson River at two U.S. Coast Guard permitted bridges: one over Croton Bay (MPs 32.5 

to 33) and the other over Peekskill Bay (MP 42). Even though work on the bridges would be 

minimal and likely contained within the existing right-of-way, it could have waterway impacts. In 

addition, the alignment in these improvement areas also closely adjoins the Hudson River; 

however, work would likely remain within the existing right-of-way and would be unlikely to 

impact the Hudson River waterway. The 10 miles of new third track (MPs 53 to 63) and 

improvements at the Poughkeepsie Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 75.8) would be unlikely to 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-63

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

impact navigable waters.

North of Poughkeepsie and south of Albany-Rensselaer Station (MPs 75.8 to 140), proposed 

improvements would include rock slope stabilization (MPs 105 to 130), three new control points 

(CP 82, CP 99, and CP 136), as well as station improvements at Rhinecliff Station (high-level 

platforms) and Hudson Station (new Ferry Street Bridge and track realignments). It is anticipated 

that these improvements would occur largely within the right-of-way and impacts to navigable 

waters would not be anticipated. Alternative 90A also includes replacement of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, which would pass over the Hudson River and has been permitted by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. Improvements and replacement activities could result in permanent and temporary 

waterway impacts, depending on the design.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 90A, track improvements would include 10 miles of third track between MPs 169 

and 179 and Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this segment. This entire 10 

mile segment would closely adjoin the banks of the Mohawk River; however, impacts in these areas 

would be contained within the current right-of-way, and there would be little potential to impact 

the Mohawk River.

Upgrades to interlockings and automatic block signals would also occur at three control points in 

the Cities of Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome (CP 175, CP 239, and CP 248, respectively) and 

Amsterdam Station improvements (MP 177.6). The control points and station improvements 

would be located within the boundaries of the principal aquifer, which would generally underlie the 

Mohawk River. These improvements would occur close to the banks of the Mohawk River; 

however, impacts in these areas would be contained within the current right-of-way, and there 

would be little potential to impact the Mohawk River. Alternative 90A would also include Syracuse 

track improvements of upgrading interlocking, automatic block signals, and control points and 

track improvements at the Syracuse Station (MPs 290 to 294). These improvements would involve 

the crossing of the Erie Canal and could also result in permanent and temporary impacts.

Rochester third track improvements along nine miles (MPs 373 to 382), west of the Rochester 

Station, would involve a crossing of the Erie Canal (MP 374.5). Improvements and construction 

activities at this crossing could result in permanent and temporary waterway impacts. Alternative 

90A also would include the addition of a third track along 11 miles (MPs 382 to 393) in western 

Monroe and eastern Genesee Counties, which would not be anticipated to impact navigable waters. 

Station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 429.5 to 432.5) and the proposed double 

track (MPs QDN17 to QDN23.2) would not cross navigable waters.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Page 4-64 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within the Empire Corridor South, other than that described above for 

Alternative 90A, is proposed.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Third and fourth track improvements for Alternative 90B would start at MP 160 in the City of 

Schenectady, and extend west to MP 430, east of Buffalo. Third track improvements would include 

the crossing of five navigable waters at 11 crossings. Areas of fourth track improvements would 

not cross navigable waters. Third track improvements over the Mohawk River would occur in 

three counties: Schenectady (MP 160), Herkimer (MP 234), and Oneida (MP 248.5), and could 

result in permanent and temporary impacts. Third track improvements over the Erie Canal would 

also occur in three counties: Herkimer (MPs 231.5), Wayne (MPs 328 to 330, 335, 339.5), and 

Monroe (MP 374.5), and could also result in permanent and temporary impacts.

Alternative 90B would also have third track improvements at crossings of the Barge Canal in 

Syracuse (MP 292), the Genesee River in Rochester (MP 371.5) and Ellicott Creek, just east of 

Buffalo-Depew (MP 422.2). Improvements at these three crossings could result in permanent and 

temporary impacts.

There would also be locations where relocations of adjoining roadways may result in impacts to 

navigable waters, but these specific locations would be defined in the Tier 2 analysis.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that described above for Alternative 

90A, is proposed.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Third and fourth track improvements for Alternative 110 would start at MP 160 in the City of 

Schenectady, and extend west to MP 430, east of Buffalo. Third and fourth track improvements 

would impact five navigable waters at 11 crossings in Schenectady, Herkimer, Oneida, Onondaga, 

Wayne, Monroe, and Erie Counties. These are the same crossings as described in Alternatives 90A 

and 90B. No other impacts other than those described above for Alternatives 90A and 90B would 

be anticipated.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-65

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River (MP 143.4). Proposed improvements would cross the Hudson River and construction of a 

new bridge over the Hudson River would also result in temporary and permanent impacts and 

would require permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment. The 

new alignment would cross the Barge Canal (MP QH278.5) in Syracuse, as well as the Genesee River 

(MP QH356.75) and the Erie Canal (MP QH359) near Rochester. Track improvements at these 

crossings could result in permanent and temporary impacts as described above, and may require 

clearance and permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to the above three 

crossings, Alternative 125 would also cross Ellicott Creek (MP QH411.5) before converging with the 

existing Empire Corridor east of Buffalo. Work over or within Ellicott Creek could result in 

permanent and temporary impacts as described above, and may require clearance and permitting 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4.8.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During the Tier 2 analysis, refinements in design and mapping will be performed and the project 

development will incorporate avoidance and minimization of impacts to navigable waters. Project 

design changes to avoid or minimize impacts may include adjusting pier and riprap locations 

outside of the ordinary high water mark. project design will be refined to minimize obstructions to 

navigation and the need for fill and dredging activities. 

A U.S. Coast Guard bridge permit and approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be 

required for improvements and construction over navigable waters, and early coordination with 

these agencies will facilitate the permitting process. In addition, design of new bridges and bridge 

improvements over navigable waters will include initiation of coordination with the NYSDEC. For 

work within the canals, coordination will also be performed with the New York State Canal 

Corporation. The local harbormasters will also be consulted regarding the proposed designs and 

construction plans.

The need for subsurface cables and the required depth of emplacement and the requirements for 

removal of existing bridge footings and subsurface cables will be determined in coordination with 

the regulatory agencies. Time-of-year work restrictions for bridge construction affecting 

navigation will be determined in consultation with these agencies. Plans for fendering and other 

Page 4-66 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

features affecting navigation will be developed in consultation with the agencies with jurisdiction. 

For new movable bridges, considerations during design may include potential for contamination 

from lubricants and fuels stored on the bridge and whether special measures or plans (e.g., Spill 

Response Plans or Environmental Operation and Maintenance Manuals) are required to prevent 

contamination during operation.

4.8.6. Future Analysis

During the Tier 2 analysis, further coordination will be performed to identify navigable waters in 

the study and issues of concern for the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Information available on the location and depths of the navigation channels will be researched and 

obtained. Depending on the type of improvements proposed, detailed cross-sections of bridges 

may be developed to fully understand the potential impacts to the crossings. Depending on the 

type and extent of improvements proposed at bridge crossings, additional research on the type and 

heights of navigational vessels may be required for new bridge construction, as part of a bridge 

type study. Research on peak navigation seasons may be required for any navigational closures. 

Coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NYSDEC will be 

completed during the design of new or rehabilitated/reconstructed bridges and development of 

plans for placement of any associated submarine cables and other structures within navigable 

waterways. 

If required, a U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge permit will be prepared and submitted to the USCG. 

In addition, a joint permit application will be prepared and submitted, if required, to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers for excavation and fill in navigable waters and Section 10 approvals (under the 

U.S. Clean Waters Act) and to NYSDEC. A Protection of Waters Permit is required by NYSDEC for 

excavating or placing fill in navigable waters of the state, below the mean high water level, 

including adjacent and contiguous marshes and wetlands. Therefore, early design coordination 

with NYSDEC will also be needed. Work within the New York State Canal System will require 

consultation with, and required approvals from, the New York State Canal Corporation. During 

construction affecting navigable waters and canals, construction approvals may be required from 

the USCG and the New York State Canal Corporation that might include consideration of navigation 

seasons and closures. In addition, work within waterbodies owned by the state may require 

easements or approvals from the New York State Office of General Services.

4.9. Floodplains

4.9.1. Regulatory Context

Floodplains are the lands on either side of a stream that are inundated when the capacity of the 

stream channel is exceeded. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established 

pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (amended)81 and the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973 (as amended)82, to encourage sound floodplain management programs at 

the state and local levels. To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 100-

year flood has been adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the base 

81/ National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C.4001 et seq. (1968). 82/ Flood Disaster Act of 1973 [42 U.S.C.4001 et seq.] (amended).

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-67

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

flood for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. 

Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management83 (1977) directs federal agencies to "provide 

leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of floods on 

human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by floodplains." In addition, the U.S. DOT Order 5650.2 describes policies and procedures 

for “ensuring that proper consideration is given to avoidance and mitigation of adverse floodplain 

impacts in agency actions, planning programs and budget requests.”84 The FEMA Regulations 

contain the basic policies and procedures of FEMA in regulating floodplain management and to 

analyze, identify, and map floodplains for flood insurance purposes.85

FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that each project shall determine 

whether any of the alternatives would affect a base floodplain. If one or more alternatives would 

affect a base floodplain, the Draft EIS shall discuss: any risk associated with each such alternative; 

the impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values; the degree to which the alternative 

supports incompatible development in the base floodplain; and the adequacy of the methods 

proposed to minimize harm. In the final EIS, this discussion should concentrate on the proposed 

action and a finding that the proposed impact encroachment is the only practicable alternative.86

Generally, these regulations are enforced at the local level by local governments, with assistance 

from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In New York State, 

local communities that participate in the NFIP regulate development in Special Flood Hazard Areas. 

An exception is development funded and undertaken by the state or federal government, which is 

regulated by the responsible agency, subject to technical assistance by the NYSDEC and the FEMA. 

Nearly all New York communities, defined as a town, city or village, participate in the NFIP. Each 

participating community in the state has a designated floodplain administrator, usually the building 

inspector or code enforcement official.87,88

4.9.2. Methodology

Flood-prone areas were identified using GIS mapping of 100-year floodplain areas identified by 

FEMA for study areas within 300-feet of the corridor centerline for all alternatives. Floodplains are 

associated with all of the major drainageways and streams that cross the railroad and stations. A 

floodplain is the area that is inundated with water during a flood. A 100-year flood is calculated to 

be the level of flood water that has a one percent (%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any 

single year. A floodplain is composed of two parts: the floodway and the floodway fringe. The 

floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of 

encroachment in order that the 100-year flood is carried without increasing the water surface 

elevation by more than one foot. The floodway fringe area is the outer portion of the floodplain 

83/ Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” President of the United States, 1977. 84/ US Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, "Floodplain Management and Protection," April 23, 1979. 85/ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44 – Emergency Management and Assistance, Chapter I – FEMA. 86/ Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 65 Final Rule (FR) 28545 Floodplains 

subsection 14 (n)(8).

87/ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Floodplain Construction Requirements in New York State.” September, 

2007, Accessed April 19, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/floodplainconstruction.pdf> 88/ 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 502, Floodplain Management Criteria for State Projects (authority 

Environmental Conservation Law [ECL] section 1-0101, 3-0301 and Article 36).

Page 4-68 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

beyond the floodway. Changes in the floodway such as adding fill material, constructing buildings 

or bridges, or limiting the natural conveyance of floodwaters can cause a rise in the 100-year water 

surface and can subsequently impact properties not previously affected by a 100-year storm event. 

GIS mapping was obtained from NYS GIS, and was based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMs). Areas of 100-year floodplains within the 600-foot wide study area were calculated. GIS 

mapping of FEMA floodplains was not available for New York, Bronx, Putnam, Schenectady, 

Montgomery, and Wayne Counties. 

4.9.3. Existing Conditions

The discussion below summarizes 100-year floodplains within the 300-foot Empire Corridor buffer. 

The study area is divided into two sections: the Empire Corridor South segment from New York 

City to Rensselaer County and the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch segment from Albany 

County to end of the line in Niagara Falls. The 90/110 Study Area follows the existing rail corridor. 

Alternative 125 Study Area follows an alternative, but more direct route through Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch. 

There are approximately 8,000 acres of mapped 100-year floodplains in the 90/110 Study Area and 

approximately 5,900 acres of mapped 100-year floodplains in the 125 Study Area from New York 

City to Niagara Falls. Within the 90/110 Study Area, 55.7 percent of the mapped 100-year 

floodplains are located within Empire Corridor South, and 44.3 percent are within Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch. Within the 125 Study Area, 75.4 percent of the mapped 100-year floodplains 

are located in Empire Corridor South and 24.6 percent are located in Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch. Exhibit 4-14 below summarizes mapped 100-year floodplains within the 

study area and a description of floodplains in each county is presented in Appendix G.8.

4.9.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe encroachments on mapped areas of 100-year floodplains. The 

installation of tracks on existing former rail embankments, signals, and other ancillary facilities 

would in many instances involve minimal impacts or changes to ground surface elevations, 

although installation of new railroad embankments may have a greater effect on surface 

topography. Work for new bridge construction within a regulatory floodway may have a greater 

effect on flood elevations. In general, any new embankment material or structures, such as bridges, 

placed within a floodway may alter the 100-year floodplain limits. Changes to existing drainage 

structures, such as culverts through the embankment, or addition of new waterway 

crossings/culverts may change the hydraulic capacity, which could affect peak flow rates upstream 

and downstream of the crossing and which could also affect the 100-year surface water elevations.

It is assumed for this evaluation that all new structures, embankments, filling, paving, or other 

modifications to open channels in floodways would be considered a floodplain encroachment. 

Encroachments to the floodplain would not necessarily result in a rise to the 100-year surface 

water elevation. 

Review of GIS mapping indicates that the Base Alternative and Alternative 90A would have the least 

impacts to the 100-year floodplain. These alternatives would largely involve work within the rightHigh Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-69

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-14—Mapped FEMA 100-year Floodplains in the Study Area

County

Acres of 100-Year Floodplains3

90/110 Study Area 125 Study Area

New York1 ND ND

Bronx1 ND ND

Westchester 703 703

Putnam1 ND ND

Dutchess 1,766 1,766

Columbia 1,244 1,244

Rensselaer 751 752

Albany 90 43

Schenectady1 ND ND

Schoarie1 0 ND

Montgomery2 ND (8) ND

Herkimer 904 45

Oneida 780 81

Madison 226 110

Onondaga 712 547

Cayuga 316 45

Wayne1 ND ND

Monroe 237 296

Genesee 234 247

Erie 15 20

Niagara 22 22

TOTAL 8,008 5,921

Notes

1 No GIS data available from FEMA

2 No GIS data available from FEMA. Acreages are a result of adjacent County overlap.

3 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre.

ND=No Data

The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 300 feet of the corridor centerline.

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 2010.

of-way, with tracks being added in the location of the former track beds or existing access roads. 

Alternatives 90B and 110 would have potential impacts on the 100-year floodplain in more

locations than the Base and 90A Alternatives, especially where new third and fourth track 

construction would occur within a floodway. Alternative 125 would involve the greatest impacts 

on the 100-year floodplain as it would extend on a new alignment. This preliminary assessment is 

based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and would be further refined in Tier 2 as the project 

development process is further advanced, and efforts to avoid floodplain alterations would be made 

as design is advanced.

Page 4-70 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The sections below identify the areas where improvements or new track would be constructed in, 

or adjacent to, mapped 100-year floodplains. However, the specific project impacts on 100-year 

flood elevations will be documented as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. 

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative includes signal and grade crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. The majority of the alignment in this segment is within or adjacent to floodplains 

associated with the Hudson River. Signal improvements will not likely result in fill placement in 

floodplains; however any culvert or drainage reconfigurations or increase in impervious surfaces at 

the grade crossing improvements could have the potential to affect the flooding characteristics of 

the site.

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at

Albany-Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (MPs 141 to 143), which is located within 

floodplains associated with Mill Creek and the Hudson River. The extent of fill placement within 

floodplains will depend on the design. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations, as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station. The affected portions of 

Albany and Schenectady Counties cross several streams and associated floodplains and depending 

on design, could affect flooding characteristics of the sites. These improvements will encroach on 

floodplains associated with the Hudson River (MP 143), Patroons Creek (MP 144), Rensselaer Lake 

(MP 149), Lisha Kill (MP 153.5) and the Mohawk River (MP 160.5).

Parts of the proposed Syracuse track configuration and signal improvements area (MPs 278 to 291) 

also cross floodplains of several waterways. These improvements will encroach on floodplains 

associated with Chittenango Creek, Limestone Creek, Ley Creek, and unnamed tributaries to these 

drainages. 

The Base Alternative includes Rochester Station track and platform improvements (MPs 368 to 

373). The proposed track improvements for the Rochester Station could also have the potential to 

impact floodplains associated with the Genesee River (MP 371.5). 

Proposed improvements for the new Niagara Falls Intermodal Transportation Center will be 

located within an urban area and will not involve impacts to mapped floodplains.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-71

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, and signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described.

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A would include construction of four miles of second track through urbanized areas 

of Manhattan (MPs 9 to 13), and 1.4 miles (MPs 23.8 to 25.2) of new track, extending under the 

Tappan Zee Bridge, for the Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking. Both projects would encroach on 

floodplains associated with the Hudson River and minor tributaries, such as the Harlem River at MP 

10. Therefore, depending on design, these improvements could affect the flooding characteristics of 

these sites. 

With Alternative 90A, signal improvements proposed along 43 miles (MPs 32.8 and 75.8) would 

extend through floodplain areas (primarily associated with the Hudson River and its tributaries to 

the east). However, work could be contained within the right-of-way and minimal impacts to 

floodplains are expected from the signal improvements. Along this section, portions of the 10 miles 

of new third track (MPs 53 to 63) and improvements at the Poughkeepsie Yard/Storage Facility 

(MPs 71 to 75.8) would be located within, and could affect characteristics of, mapped floodplains 

associated with the Hudson River and its tributaries such as Breakneck Brook, Catskill Aqueduct, 

Cascade Brook, Gordons Brook and Fishkill Creek. 

North of Poughkeepsie and south of Albany-Rensselaer Station (MPs 75.8 to 140), proposed 

improvements would include rock slope stabilization (MPs 105 to 130) and three new control 

points (CP 82, CP 99, and CP 136), as well as station improvements at Rhinecliff Station (high-level 

platforms) and Hudson Station (new Ferry Street Bridge and track realignments). Much of the 

railroad alignment in this area would pass through Hudson River floodplains and floodplains of 

tributaries east of the Hudson River, but some of these improvements that are at-grade may have a 

minimal impact on flooding characteristics. Alternative 90A would also include replacement of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would pass over the Hudson River and its floodplain at the 

Rensselaer/Albany County Line. Depending on the design of the bridge, this hydraulic opening may 

be affected.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 90A, track improvements would include 10 miles of third track between MPs 169 

and 179, and Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this segment. This entire 10 

mile segment would closely adjoin the banks of the Mohawk River; however, digital FEMA data was 

not available for Schenectady and Montgomery Counties. It would be likely that floodplains 

associated with the Mohawk River and its tributaries would be located along the alignment. 

Although impacts in these areas may be contained within the current right-of-way, there would still 

be potential for minimal encroachment on floodplains in these areas.

West of MP 175, work extending west to MP 295 consists of upgrading interlocking, automatic 

block signals, and control points. The railroad alignment would continue to closely adjoin the 

banks of the Mohawk River and Erie Canal through MP 253. Floodplains associated with the 

Page 4-72 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Mohawk River and the Erie Canal, as well as numerous tributaries would be located along the track. 

From MPs 253 to 295, the alignment would cross numerous water features and their associated 

floodplains. Since this work would be performed within the current right-of-way, it would be 

unlikely to impact the floodplain through this segment. 

Alternative 90A includes Syracuse Station track improvements (MPs 290 to 294). In the area of the 

Syracuse Station track improvements, the alternative would pass through floodplains associated 

with Ley Creek (MP 287), the Barge Canal and Onondaga Lake (MPs 292.5 to 292.75). 

Rochester third track improvements are proposed along nine miles (MPs 373 to 382) west of 

Rochester Station. These third track improvements along the nine miles west of the Rochester 

Station could have the potential to impact floodplains associated with the Erie Canal (MP 374.5) 

and Little Black Creek (MPs 377.5 to 378.5).

Alternative 90A would also include the addition of a third track along 11 miles (MPs 382 to 393) in 

western Monroe and eastern Genesee Counties. The addition of this track will encroach on 

floodplains associated with Little Black Creek, Robins Brook and Black Creek. 

Station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 429.5 to 432.5) would not be located 

within or adjacent to floodplains. The proposed double track (MPs QDN17 to QDN23.2) could have 

the potential to impact floodplains associated with Bergholtz Creek (MP QDN20) and Cayuga Creek 

(MP QDN21.5), depending on design.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed and no additional floodplains impact is anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Third and fourth track improvements for Alternative 90B start at MP 160 in the City of Schenectady 

and extend west to MP 430, east of Buffalo, and would have the potential to impact floodplains of 

numerous waterways. In Schenectady County, Alternative 90B would cross approximately eight 

water features; however digital floodplain data was not available for this county. It is likely that 

floodplains exist along these waterways, especially along the Mohawk River, which crosses the 

alignment at MP 160 and closely adjoins the rail line from approximately MP 166 to the county line 

(MP 169.5). There would be potential to directly or indirectly impact floodplains in these areas 

from the construction of new track.

The railroad would continue to adjoin the north bank of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal through all 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-73

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

of Montgomery County, largely remaining within 50 to 1,000 feet of the river/canal. In addition, 

there would be approximately 35 waterway crossings, primarily over tributaries of the Mohawk 

River. Again, digital floodplain data was not available for this county. It is likely that floodplains do 

exist along these waterways, especially along the Mohawk River, and both third and fourth track 

improvements in this county would have the potential to impact floodplains in these areas.

The railroad would continue to adjoin the north bank of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal through all 

of Herkimer County, largely remaining within or adjacent to the mapped floodplains of the Mohawk 

River and Erie Canal. In addition, Alternative 90B would cross the floodplains of East Canada Creek 

(MP 210) and West Canada Creek (MP 223). 

Alternative 90B would extend through Oneida County, paralleling the Erie Canal/Mohawk River 

between Utica and Rome and remaining within or adjacent to its floodplain, before diverging west 

to flow into Oneida Lake. The alternative would cross approximately 12 waterways in this county. 

In addition to the Mohawk River/Erie Canal floodplain (roughly between MPs 254 and 264), 

Alternative 90B would cross floodplains associated with Sauquoit Creek (MP 240.5), Oriskany 

Creek (MP 244.5), Mud Creek (MPs 256 to 256.5) and Stony Creek (MP 261) and enter the 

floodplain of Oneida Creek at the county line (MP 264). 

In Madison County, Alternative 90B would cross 11 waterways and would cross seven mapped 

floodplain areas associated with these crossings. Entering the county, the alternative would be 

located within the floodplain of Oneida Creek (MP 264) and then would pass floodplains associated 

with Cowaselon Creek (MP 266), Dutch Settlement Creek (MPs 268 to 268.5), the Old Erie 

Canal/Owlville Creek (MP 272), Canaseraga Creek (MPs 272.5 to 273.75), Chittenango Creek (MPs 

276 to 277) and Pools Brook (MP 278). 

There are 16 waterway crossings and 10 floodplain areas that Alternative 90B would traverse in 

Onondaga County. The alignment would enter the eastern portion of the county within the 

floodplain of Pools Brook (MP 278.5). It would then pass through floodplains associated with Lake 

Brook and Limestone Creek (MPs 280 to 283.5), Butternut Creek (MP 285), Ley Creek (MP 287), the 

Barge Canal and Onondaga Lake (MPs 292.5 to 292.75), Geddes Brook (MPs 294.75 to 295.75), Nine 

Mile Creek (MPs 296.5 to 296.75), White Bottom Creek (MPs 302.5 to 303.5), Carpenters Brook (MP 

305.5), and Skaneateles Creek (MPs 307 to 309 at the county line). 

In Cayuga County, Alternative 90B would enter the county and would remain within or adjacent to 

floodplains associated with Skaneateles Creek (MPs 309 to 311.5). The railroad alignment would 

then pass through floodplains associated with Putnam and Spring Bring (MPs 311.75 to 312.5), 

Owasco Outlet (MPs 315.5 and 315.75), and Swamp Brook (MPs 316.25 to 316.5). The alignment 

would be in, or adjacent to, floodplains associated with the Seneca River from MP 318 to the county 

line (MP 320). 

There would be approximately 18 waterway crossings in Wayne County. Digital floodplain data 

was not available for this county. It would be likely that floodplains exist along these waterways, 

especially along Black Creek, the Erie Canal, Ganargua Creek, Red Creek and numerous unnamed 

tributaries to these water features that cross the alternative. Therefore, both third and fourth track 

improvements in this county could have the potential to impact floodplains in these areas.

Alternative 90B would be in or adjacent to seven floodplain areas associated with 19 waterway 

crossings in Monroe County. The railroad alignment would be within, or adjacent to, floodplains 

associated with Thomas Creek for roughly 2.5 miles in eastern Monroe County (MPs 359 to 361.5). 

Page 4-74 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

It would also traverse floodplains associated with Irondequoit Creek (MP 363), Allen Creek (MP 

365.5), the Genesee River (MP 371.5), the Erie Canal (MP 374.5), Little Black Creek (MPs 377.5 to 

378.5) and Black Creek (MP 386).

 

There would be approximately 17 waterway crossings in Genesee County and numerous floodplain 

areas that Alternative 90B would cross. The alignment would traverse floodplains associated with 

Black Creek and its tributaries (MPs 389 and 396.5). It would then be within, or adjacent to, 

floodplains associated with Tonawanda Creek (MPs 402.5 to 404.5) and several crossings of 

floodplains associated with Murder Creek and its tributaries (MPs 411.75 to 412.25, 413.75 to 

414.25 and 417.5). 

Alternative 90B third track improvements would only traverse two floodplain areas associated 

with Ellicott Creek (MP 422.5) and Scajaquada Creek (MP QDN 6.3) in Erie County. 

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

would occur and additional floodplain impacts would not be anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, track realignments and third and fourth track improvements would traverse 

the same floodplain areas as described in Alternatives 90A and 90B (with the exception of 

Scajaquada Creek [MP QDN6.3] in Erie County), but may have greater impacts as the tracks are 

further offset from the existing tracks. No other floodplain encroachments other than those 

described above for Alternatives 90A and 90B would be anticipated for Alternative 110.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-75

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

River. Proposed improvements would have the potential to encroach on floodplains associated 

with Mill Creek and the Hudson River over this one-mile segment.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

After crossing the Hudson River, Alternative 125 would extend through Albany and Schenectady 

Counties over a distance of 20 miles, primarily following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) 

over most of this distance. In Albany County, Alternative 125 would have the potential to impact 

floodplains associated with the Hudson River (MPs QH143 to QH144) and Krum Kill (MP 

QH147.75). In Schenectady and Schoharie Counties, Alternative 125 would cross approximately 27 

water features; however, digital floodplain data was not available for these counties. It is likely that 

floodplains exist along these waterways, and construction of Alternative 125 would have the 

potential to impact these floodplains. In addition, impacts to floodplains from Alternative 90A 

would also occur in Schenectady County as part of Alternative 125.

Alternative 125 would extend through Montgomery County, where there are approximately 21 

waterway crossings, including Fly Creek, Flat Creek, Canajoharie Creek and numerous unnamed 

tributaries. Again, digital floodplain data was not available for these counties. It is likely that 

floodplains exist along these waterways, and construction of Alternative 125 would have the 

potential to encroach on these floodplains. In addition, impacts to floodplains from Alternative 

90A would also occur in Montgomery County as part of Alternative 125.

In Herkimer County, Alternative 125 would cross approximately 39 waterways and floodplains 

associated with Otsquago Creek (MP QH202.5), Ohisha Creek (MP QH206.5), Fulmer Creek (MP 

QH212), Steele Creek (MP QH218) and an unnamed tributary to Moyer Creek (MP QH221.5). The 

new alignment would have the potential to impact all floodplains it crosses in this county.

In Oneida County, Alternative 125 would extend through primarily rural areas and would cross 

approximately 18 mapped waterways, including floodplains associated with Palmer Creek (MP 

QH229.5), Sauquoit Creek (MP QH230.25), Sherman Brook and Oriskany Creek (MPs QH235.5 to 

QH236), Dean’s Creek (MP QH240), and Sconondoa Creek (MP QH248). Alternative 125 would 

enter the floodplain of Oneida Creek as it crosses into Madison County. These floodplains would 

have the potential to be impacted by new crossings for the construction of Alternative 125.

In Madison County, Alternative 125 would extend through primarily rural areas and would cross 

floodplains associated with Oneida Creek (MP QH249.5), Cowelson Creek (MP QH253), an unnamed 

tributary to the Erie Canal (MP QH253.5), Canastota Creek, Owlville Creek and its tributaries (MPs 

QH257.75 and QH258.25), Canaseraga Creek (MP QH260), and Chittenango Creek MP QH262.25). 

All floodplains associated with these crossings would have the potential to be impacted by 

construction of Alternative 125.

In Onondaga County, Alternative 125 would merge with the existing Empire Corridor just before 

the City of Syracuse. Alternative 125 would extend through 16 miles of the city before diverging 

from the existing Empire Corridor and would continue on a new alignment for the remainder of the 

county. There would be approximately 20 waterway crossings in this county. The alignment would 

cross floodplains associated with Pools Brook (MP QH264.75) and would be within, or adjacent to, 

floodplains associated with Lake Brook and Limestone Creek for approximately two miles (MPs 

Page 4-76 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

QH266.25 to QH268.25) just before rejoining the existing Empire Corridor. The alternative would 

then cross floodplains associated with Butternut Creek (MP QH270.5) and Ley Creek (MP 

QH272.75) in East Syracuse, before crossing floodplains associated with the Barge Canal and 

Onondaga Lake for roughly two miles (MPs QH276.5 to QH279.5) through the City of Syracuse. Just 

east of Syracuse, the alignment would be in, or adjacent to, floodplains associated with Geddes 

Brook and Nine Mile Creek for roughly two-and-a-half miles (MPs QH281.75 to QH284) before 

splitting from the exiting Empire Corridor. The alignment would pass through areas of floodplains 

associated with Dead Man Creek (MP QH289.75), the Seneca River and Cross Lake (MP QH292), in 

the western portion of the county. Much of the alignment in this county would be new construction 

and therefore would have the potential to impact the floodplains crossed.

In Cayuga County, Alternative 125 would cross three floodplain areas associated with the Seneca 

River (MP QH295.75), Muskrat Creek (MP QH297.5) and a tributary of the Seneca River (MP 

QH304). All floodplains associated with these crossings could have the potential to be impacted by 

new construction of Alternative 125. In Wayne County, Alternative 125 would cross approximately 

43 waterways. Digital floodplain data was not available for Wayne County; however, it is likely that 

floodplains would exist along the 43 waterways, and construction of Alternative 125 would have 

the potential to impact these floodplains. 

In Monroe County, Alternative 125 would merge with the existing Empire Corridor through the City 

of Rochester, diverging again 5.5 miles west of Rochester Station to continue on a new alignment 

through the remainder of the county. Alternative 125 would cross floodplains associated with 

Thomas Creek and several of its tributaries (MPs QH343.5 and QH345.5 to QH346.5), Irondequoit 

Creek (MP QH347.5), Allen Creek (MP QH350.25), the Genesee River (MP QH356.25) and the Erie 

Canal (MP QH359). Also, just after the alignment diverges from the existing Empire Corridor east of 

Rochester, Alternative 125 would pass in and out of the Little Black Creek floodplain for 

approximately four miles (MPs QH361.5 to QH365.5). These floodplains could have the potential to 

be impacted by new construction of Alternative 125. In addition, impacts to floodplains from 

Alternative 90A would also occur in Monroe County as part of Alternative 125.

In Genesee County, Alternative 125 would extend through primarily rural areas and cross 

approximately 25 mapped waterways. The alignment would cross floodplains associated with 

Black Creek and its tributaries (MPs QH372.25, QH373.25, QH374.25 and QH375.75 to QH377), 

unnamed tributaries to Spring Creek (MPs QH382 to QH383), Oak Orchard Creek and its tributaries 

(MPs QH383.5, QH385, QH385.5, QH386 and QH388), Tonawanda Creek (MP QH397.5) and Murder 

Creek and its tributaries (MPs QH400.5 to QH401.25). These floodplains could have the potential to 

be impacted by new crossings for construction of Alternative 125. In addition, impacts to 

floodplains from Alternative 90A would also occur in Genesee County as part of Alternative 125.

Alternative 125 would cross floodplains associated with Ellicott Creek (MP QH411.5) in Erie 

County. Construction of Alternative 125 could have the potential to impact this floodplain. No 

impacts to floodplains would occur from Alternative 125 in Niagara County other than those 

described in Alternative 90A.

4.9.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During Tier 2, refinements in design and mapping will be performed and the project development 

will incorporate avoidance and minimization of floodplain impacts to the extent practicable. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-77

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Hydraulic analysis may be required to demonstrate the effects the design will have on mapped 

floodplains, and to determine mitigation appropriate for any effects on flood elevations. For new or 

modified bridges or culverts, mitigation might include improving hydraulic openings to 

accommodate passage of flood flows. Other types of mitigation that might be considered include 

minimizing encroachments in floodway areas and floodway fringe areas or providing compensatory 

flood storage in other areas.

In general, the authority for requiring a hydraulic analysis to satisfy the "no-rise" criteria stems 

from 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3), which states that where a regulatory floodway has been designated the 

community shall: "Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial 

improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been 

demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard 

engineering practices that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels 

within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge." 89 Specific state authority 

to require a "no-rise" analysis (for state-owned and state-funded projects, only) stems from 6 

NYCRR 502.4(b). Local authority stems from Article 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law 

(ECL), as well as various provisions in the applicable local law for flood damage prevention, which 

are based on FEMA minimum standards, and require technical evaluations for "no-rise" and "no 

adverse effect." While a hydraulic analysis is considered an option for satisfying the "no adverse 

effects" criteria for proposed development solely in the floodway fringe, it may be unreasonable to 

require such an analysis for anything but a large development with a large quantity of fill.90 

Therefore, it is important that that during the Tier 2 design and analysis, consultation be performed 

with NYSDEC and FEMA regarding the approach for floodplain evaluations.

If required by the NYSDEC or FEMA, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be prepared 

to request a modification of the floodplain and floodplain maps to mitigate for increases in flood 

elevations. Proposed modifications to floodplains will be submitted to FEMA for approval of a 

CLOMR prior to construction. Where the floodplain elevations and limits are changed by the 

program, it will be necessary to file a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA after construction 

is complete so that the FIRMs can be updated.

4.9.6. Future Analysis

During the Tier 2 assessments, refinements to the impact assessment based on design and sitespecific mapping, and updated floodplain maps available will be obtained. For counties in this Tier 

1 analysis where flood maps were not available, the Tier 2 analysis will include coordination with 

FEMA and NYSDEC to identify floodplains in those areas. In instances where digital floodplain 

mapping was not available, digitizing of floodplain maps may be required. 

According to NYSDEC, there is a two-tiered system of technical evaluation for proposed 

development in the floodplain. For streams with detailed studies, the 100-year floodplain has been 

divided into two zones, the floodway and the floodway fringe. The floodway is that area that must 

be kept open to convey flood waters downstream. The floodway fringe is that area that can be 

89/ NYSDEC, 2012. Floodplain Development and Floodway Guidance. NYSDOT, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/24281.html>, accessed 

March 2012.

90/ NYSDEC, 2012. Floodplain Construction Requirements in New York State. NYSDOT, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/40576.html>, 

accessed March 2012.

Page 4-78 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

developed in accordance with FEMA standards.91 All proposed floodplain development must meet 

the "no adverse affect" criteria, while proposed floodway development must also meet the "no-rise" 

criteria. 92

Any proposed development within the floodway requires a hydraulic analysis to demonstrate "norise." "No-rise" is defined as a 0.00-feet difference in the computed base flood elevations (BFE's) at 

each modeled cross-section. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local Floodplain Administrator 

(FPA) to determine what form of technical evaluation is acceptable. 93 In addition, pursuant to 6 

NYCRR Part 501, NYSDEC may require a permit for any regulated activity on flood control lands 

under the jurisdiction of NYSDEC.94

As mentioned above, any changes or modifications to floodplain levels will be submitted to FEMA in 

accordance with 44 CFR, Emergency Management and Assistance. When a program will change the 

flood level, FEMA maps must be changed to reflect the new flood hazard. As mentioned above, 

proposed modifications to floodplains will be submitted to FEMA for approval of a CLOMR prior to 

construction and where the floodplain elevations and limits are changed by the program, it will be 

necessary to file a LOMR with FEMA after construction is complete so that the Flood Insurance Rate 

Maps (FIRMs) can be updated. 

This process includes the following: 

• Complete application and letter of request for conditional approval of a change in the FIRM or a 

CLOMR; 

• An evaluation of alternatives which, if carried out, would not result in an increase in the base 

flood elevation more than allowed, along with documentation as to why these alternatives are 

not feasible; 

• Public notification in the form of documentation of individual legal notice to all affected 

property owners (anyone affected by the increased flood elevations, within and outside of the 

community) explaining the impact of the proposed action on their properties;

• Concurrence, in writing, from the chief executive officer of any other communities affected by 

the proposed actions; 

• Certification that no structures are located in areas that would be affected by the increased base 

flood elevation (unless they have been purchased for relocation or demolition); and, 

• A request for revision of base flood elevation determinations in accordance with the provisions 

of 44 CFR 65.6 of the FEMA regulations.

91/ NYSDEC, 2012. Floodplain Development and Floodway Guidance. NYSDOT, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/24281.htmll>, website 

accessed March 2012.

92/ NYSDEC, 2012. Floodplain Development and Floodway Guidance. NYSDOT, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/24281.htmll>, website 

accessed March 2012.

93/ NYSDEC, 2012. Floodplain Development and Floodway Guidance. NYSDOT, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/24281.htmll>, website 

accessed March 2012.

94/ NYSDEC, 2012. Part 501: Use of Flood Control Lands. NYSDEC, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4472.html>, website accessed March 

2012.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-79

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.10. Wetlands

Wetlands are important biological resources that perform multiple functions, including 

groundwater recharge, flood flow attenuation, erosion control, and water quality improvement. 

They also provide habitat for many plants and animals, including threatened and endangered 

species. Wetlands are commonly found at the edges of creek beds and the shorelines of ponds, 

lakes and oceans, but can also be formed by moisture trapped in depressional areas or a naturally 

high groundwater table. 

4.10.1. Regulatory Context

Federal agencies are required to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the extent possible per 

Executive Order (EO) 11990, and the U.S. ACE has jurisdictional responsibilities under Section 404 

of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Many wetlands and other aquatic features are considered “waters of 

the U.S.,” and these “jurisdictional” areas are protected under Section 404. Wetlands are defined 

under the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA)95 as, "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface 

or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."96

The national standard for wetland classification is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Classification System, 

which is used in the mapping of wetlands and deepwater habitats performed for the National 

Wetlands Inventory (NWI)97. The five major wetland and deepwater systems are marine, estuarine, 

riverine, palustrine (non-tidal freshwater or salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand), and 

lacustrine. 

In New York State, two types of wetlands are the focus of protection: tidal and freshwater. The 

New York State Tidal Wetlands Act has been enacted for the preservation and protection of tidal 

wetlands, located at the critical interface between land and tidal waters. Tidal wetland 

classifications found in the study area are presented in Exhibit 4-15. The New York State 

Freshwater Wetlands Act regulates wetlands according to four classes of wetlands (Classes I 

through IV), with Class I wetlands having the highest value. Under both sets of regulations, adjacent 

areas, or the buffer zone around wetlands, are defined and regulated.98 Under the tidal wetland 

regulations, adjacent areas are defined as areas not included in any of the defined tidal wetland 

categories (refer to Exhibit 4-15 for study area categories) that are generally not inundated by tidal 

waters and that extend 300 feet landward of the most landward tidal wetlands boundary or to an 

elevation of ten feet.

95/ As defined by the U.S. ACE (Title 33 CFR 328.3, 1986) and the U.S. EPA (40 CFR 230.3, 1980).

96/ Environmental Laboratory. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1. Prepared for the U.S. ACE, 

Washington, D.C. Final Report. January, 1987.

97/ Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S., Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), FWS/OBS-79/31, 1979.

98/ NYSDEC “Part 661: Tidal Wetlands-Land Use Regulations - Page 1.” Accessed November, 2011. < 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/13337.html>

Page 4-80 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-81 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit 4-15—NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Classifications in the Study Area

Tidal Wetland Class Description

Open	Water	(OW)‐	 Open	water	areas

Coastal	Shoals,	Bars	and	

Mudflats	(SM)

The	tidal	wetland	zone	that	at	high	tide	is	covered	by	saline	or	fresh	tidal	waters,	at	low	

tide	is	exposed	or	is	covered	by	water	to	a	maximum	depth	of	approximately	one	foot,	and	

is	not	vegetated.	

Vegetated	Coastal	Shoals,	

Bars	and	Mudflats	(SV)	

The	tidal	wetland	zone	that	at	high	tide	is	covered	by	saline	or	fresh	tidal	waters,	at	low	

tide	is	exposed	or	is	covered	by	water	to	a	maximum	depth	of	approximately	one	foot,	and	

is	vegetated.	

Broad‐Leaf	Vegetation	

(BV)	

The	 vegetated	 tidal	 wetlands	 zone	 that	 includes	 all	 lands	 that	 generally	 receive	 daily	

flushing	from	fresh	tidal	water.	This	area	is	generally	lower	than	the	graminoid	vegetation	

area	and	is	characterized	by	broad	leaf	emergent	vegetation	such	as	spatterdock, Nuphar

sp.,	pickerelweed	(Pontederia cordata)	and	arrowleaf, (Peltandra virginica)	among	others.

Graminoid	Vegetation	

(GV)	

The	 vegetated	 tidal	 wetlands	 zone	 that	 includes	 all	 lands	 that	 receive	 at	 least	 periodic	

flushing	 from	 fresh	 water.	 This	 area	 is	 generally	 higher	 than	 the	 broad	 leaf	 vegetation	

area.	The	lower	elevated	portions	of	 this	area	may	receive	daily	 flushing	and	 the	higher	

elevations	periodic	flushing	from	storm	tides.	It	is	characterized	by	graminoid	vegetation	

such	 as	 cattail	 (Typha angustifolia),	 bulrushes,	 (Scirpus spp.)	 and	 wild	 rice,	 Zizania

aquatica.	

Swamp	Shrub	(SS)

Includes	 all	 land	 that	 receives	 periodic	 inundation	 from	 tidal	 fresh	 waters	 and	 is	

characterized	by	shrubs	such	as	alder	(Alnus spp.),	buttonbush	(Cepahalanus occidentalis)	

bog	 rosemary	 (Andromeda glaucophylla),	 dogwoods	 (Cornus spp.)	 and	 leatherleaf	

(Chamaedaphne calyculata).	

Swamp	Tree	(ST)

Includes	 all	 land	 that	 receives	 periodic	 inundation	 from	 tidal	 fresh	 waters	 and	 is	

characterized	by	trees	such	as	red	maple	(Acer rubrum),	willows	(Salix spp.)	and	black	ash	

(Fraxinus nigra).	

To	be	protected	under	the	New	York	State	Freshwater	Wetlands	Act,	a	wetland	must	be	12.4	acres	

(five	 hectares	 or	 larger).	 Wetlands	 smaller	 than	 this	 may	 be	 protected	 if	 they	 are	 considered	 of	

unusual	 local	 importance.	 	 Around	 every	 wetland	 is	 an	 “adjacent	 area”	 of	 100	 feet	 that	 is	 also	

regulated	to	provide	protection	for	the	wetland99.		The	four	freshwater	classifications	are	described	

in	Exhibit	4‐16.	

4.10.2. Methodology

Federal	and	state	 tidal	and	 freshwater	wetlands	within	300	 feet	of	 the	corridor	centerline	 (study	

area)	for	each	corridor	were	mapped	and	characterized.		Available	GIS	mapping	from	the	U.S.	Fish	

and	Wildlife	Service	National	Wetlands	Inventory	and	the	NYSDEC	Hudson	River	tidal	wetlands	and	

freshwater	 wetlands	 were	 compiled	 for	 the	 600‐foot‐wide	 study	 area.	 	 The	 three	 wetland	layers	

were	overlaid	to	create	the	wetland	totals	shown	in	Exhibit	4‐17.	

The	digital	data	for	the	National	Wetlands	Inventory	was	not	available	for	Montgomery,	Herkimer,	

Oneida,	and	Madison	Counties.			

Exhibit	 4‐17	 displays	 the	 study	 area	 wetlands	 and	 also	 accounts	 for	 the	 overlaps	 in	 the	 various	

federal	and	state	wetland	layers.		Electronic	mapping	available	from	NYSDEC	included	delineation	

of	tidal	wetland	adjacent	areas,	so	these	areas	were	also	tabulated	in	Exhibit	4‐17.			 	

                                                            

99/ NYSDEC,	1997.		Freshwater	Wetlands	Act,	Article	24,	Title	23	of	Article	71	of	the	ECL,	May	1997.		
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-82 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit 4-16—NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Classifications100

Freshwater

Wetland Class Description

Class	I	 If	 it	 has	 any	 one	 of	 following	 seven	 characteristics:	 	 (1)	 kettlehole	 bog,	 (2)	 resident	 habitat	 for	

endangered	or	threatened	animal	species	or	(3)	supports	other	animal	species	unusual	for	the	state	

or	 region	 or	 (4)	 contains	 endangered	 or	 threatened	 plant	 species,	 (5)	 provides	 protection	 to	

developed	area	 from	significant	 flood	damage,	 or	 (6)	 tributary	 to	surface	water	 or	aquifer	used	 for	

public	water	supply,	or	(7)	contains	four	or	more	Class	II	characteristics.	

Class	II	 If	it	has	any	one	of	following	seventeen	characteristics:		(1)	emergent	marsh	covered	in	which	cover	

type	is	less	 than	 two‐thirds	 purple	loosestrife	and/or	 reed	 (phragmites),	 (2)	 contains	 two	 or	more	

wetland	 structural	 groups,	 	 (3)	 contiguous	 to	 a	 tidal	 wetland,	(4)	 associated	 with	 permanent	 open	

water	 outside	 the	 wetland,	 (5)	 adjacent	 or	 contiguous	 to	 streams	 classified	 C(t)	 or	 higher	 under	

article	15	of	the	environmental	conservation	law,	(6)	traditional	migration	habitat	of	an	endangered	

or	 threatened	 animal	 species,	 (7)	 resident	 habitat	 of	 an	 animal	 species	 vulnerable	in	 the	 state,	 (8)	

contains	 a	 plant	 species	 vulnerable	 in	 the	 state,	 (9)	 supports	 an	 animal	 species	 in	 abundance	 or	

diversity	 unusual	 for	 the	 county	 in	 which	 it	 is	 found,	 (10)	 has	 demonstrable	 archaeological	 or	

paleontological	 significance	 as	 a	 wetland,	 (11)	 contains,	 is	 part	 of,	 owes	 its	 existence	 to,	 or	 is	

ecologically	associated	with,	an	unusual	geological	feature,	which	is	an	excellent	representation	of	its	

type,	 (12)	provide	protection	 from	significant	 flood	damage	 to	lightly	developed	area,	an	area	used	

for	growing	crops	for	harvest,	or	an	area	planned	for	development	by	a	local	planning	authority,	(13)	

hydraulically	connected	to	an	aquifer	identified	by	a	government	agency	as	a	potentially	useful	water	

supply,	 (14)	 acts	 in	 a	 tertiary	 treatment	 capacity	 for	 a	 sewage	 disposal	 system,	 (15)	 within	 an	

urbanized	area,	(16)	one	of	the	three	largest	wetlands	within	a	city,	town,	or	New	York	City	borough,	

or	(17)	within	a	publicly	owned	recreation	area.	

Class	III	 If	it	has	any	one	of	following	fifteen	characteristics:		(1)	emergent	marsh	in	which	purple	loosestrife	

and/or	reed	(phragmites)	constitutes	two‐thirds	or	more	of	the	cover	type,	(2)	deciduous	swamp,	(3)	

shrub	 swamp,	 (4)	 consists	 of	 floating	 and/or	 submergent	 vegetation,	 (5)	 consists	 of	 wetland	 open	

water,	 (6)	contains	an	island	with	an	area	 or	height	above	 the	wetland	adequate	 to	provide	one	 or	

more	of	the	benefits	described	in	section	664.6(b)(6);(7)	has	a	total	alkalinity	of	at	least	50	parts	per	

million,	 (8)	is	adjacent	 to	 fertile	 upland,	 (9)	 resident	 habitat	 of	an	animal	 species	 vulnerable	in	 the	

major	region	of	the	state	in	which	it	is	found,	or	it	is	traditional	migration	habitat	of	an	animal	species	

vulnerable	 in	 the	 state	 or	 in	 the	 major	 region	 in	 which	 it	 is	 found,	 (10)	 contains	 a	 plant	 species	

vulnerable	in	the	major	region,	(11)	part	of	a	surface	water	system	with	permanent	open	water	and	it	

receives	 significant	 pollution	 of	 a	 type	 amenable	 to	 amelioration	 by	wetlands,	 (12)	 visible	 from	 an	

interstate	 highway,	 a	 parkway,	 a	 designated	 scenic	 highway,	 or	 a	 passenger	 railroad	 and	 serves	 a	

valuable	 aesthetic	 or	 open	 space	 function,	 (13)	 one	 of	 the	 three	 largest	 wetlands	 of	 the	 same	

covertype	within	a	town,	(14)	in	a	town	in	which	wetland	acreage	is	less	than	one	percent	of	the	total	

acreage	or	(15)	is	on	publicly	owned	land	that	is	open	to	the	public.	

Class	IV	 If	it	does	not	have	any	 of	 the	characteristics	listed	as	criteria	 for	Class	 I,	 II	 or	 III	wetlands.	Class	 IV	

wetlands	 will	 include	 wet	 meadows	 and	 coniferous	 swamps,	 which	 lack	 other	 characteristics	

justifying	a	higher	classification.	

4.10.3. Existing Conditions

There	are	approximately	7,683	acres	of	mapped	NWI	and	NYSDEC	wetlands	in	 the	90/110	Study	

Area.		There	are	approximately	6,103	acres	of	mapped	NWI	and	NYSDEC	wetlands	in	the	125	Study	

Area.	 	 The	 deepwater	 and	 wetlands	 mapped	 in	 the	 National	 Wetlands	 Inventory	 (NWI)	 in	 the	

Empire	 Corridor	Study	area	are	 classified	 by	 the	U.S.	 Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	into	 the	 following	

eight	groups:		

	 	

                                                            

100/	NYSDEC,	“Environmental	Conservation	Law	§3‐0301	and	§24‐1301,	Chapter	X‐Division	of	Water,	Part	664	Freshwater	Wetlands	

Maps	and	Classification.”	Accessed	April	18,	2011.		<http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4612.html#13474>
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-83 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit 4-17—Summary of Federal and State Wetlands in the Study Area 

County

Acres of Wetlands

Total

NWI

NWI and

NYSDEC

Freshwater

Wetlands

NWI and

NYSDEC Tidal

Wetlands

NWI, NYSDEC

Freshwater

and Tidal

Wetlands

NYSDEC

Freshwater

NYSDEC Tidal

Wetlands

NYSDEC Tidal

and

Freshwater

Wetlands

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

90/

110

Study

Area

125

Study

Area

New York 106	 106	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 106	 106	

Bronx 133	 133	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 133	 133	

Westchester 328	 328	 0	 0	 347		 347		 10		 10		 0	 0	 84		 84		 1		 1	 770		 770		

Putnam 0	 0	 0	 0	 197		 197		 39		 39		 0	 0	 46	 46		 3		 3		 285		 285		

Dutchess 0	 0	 0	 0	 1,018		 1,018		 185		 185		 0	 0	 108		 108		 6	 6	 1,317		 1,317	

Columbia 0	 0	 0	 0	 449	 449		 427		 427		 0	 0	 62		 62		 28		 28	 966		 966		

Rensselaer 0	 0	 0	 0	 66	 63	 76	 76	 0	 0	 13	 13	 10	 10	 165	 162	

Albany 70	 3	 27	 0	 6	 6	 0	 0	 26	 0	 1	 0	 0	 0	 130	 9	

Schenectady 59	 44	 19	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 25	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 103	 44	

Schoharie1 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	

Montgomery1 34	 36	 9	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 297	 108	 0	 0	 0	 0	 340	 144	

Herkimer1 3	 20	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 47	 9	 0	 0	 0	 0	 50	 29	

Oneida1 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 593	 190	 0	 0	 0	 0	 593	 190	

Madison1 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 88	 11	 0	 0	 0	 0	 88	 11	

Onondaga 135	 80	 183	 98	 0	 0	 0	 0	 237	 283	 0	 0	 0	 0	 555	 461	

Cayuga 68	 45	 111	 85	 0	 0	 0	 0	 42	 27	 0	 0	 0	 0	 221	 157	

Wayne 287	 107	 474	 190	 0	 0	 0	 0	 140	 38	 0	 0	 0	 0	 901	 335	

Monroe 134	 126	 131	 106	 0	 0	 0	 0	 43	 21	 0	 0	 0	 0	 308	 253	

Genesee 240	 226	 117	 182	 0	 0	 0	 0	 52	 12	 0	 0	 0	 0	 409	 420	

Erie 144	 151	 25	 83	 0	 0	 0	 0	 10	 13	 0	 0	 0	 0	 179	 247	

Niagara 64	 64	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 64	 64	

Total 1,805 1,469 1,096 744 2,083 2,080 737 737 1,600 712 314 313 48 48 7,683 6,103

1	/	National	Wetlands	Inventory	Digital	data	not	complete.		Totals	are	likely	higher.	

Adjacent	Area	Tidal	wetland	buffer	classification	are	not	included	in	the	totals	

Note:	The	90/110	Study	Area	is	used	for	analysis	of	Alternatives	90A,	90B,	and	110	and	consists	of	the	existing	464‐mile	long	Empire	Corridor	alignment.	The	

125	Study	Area	is	used	for	analysis	of	Alternative	125	and	consists	of	portions	of	the	existing	Empire	Corridor	and	new	alignment	and	is	450	miles	long.	The	

study	area	width	is	defined	as	being	within	300	feet	of	the	corridor	centerline.

 Estuarine Deepwater	 (specific	 classes	 of	 estuarine	 subtidal	 unconsolidated	 bottom),	

comprising	24	percent	of	NWI	wetlands	along	the	90/110	Study	Area	and	27	percent	along	the	

125	Study	Area,	occurs	in	New	York,	Bronx,	Westchester,	Dutchess,	Putnam	Counties;	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-84 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

 Estuarine Wetlands	 (specific	 classes	 of	 estuarine	intertidal	 unconsolidated	 shore/emergent)	

comprising	2	percent	of	NWI	wetlands	along	both	the	existing	Empire	Corridor	(90/110	Study	

Area)	and	the	125	Study	Area,	occurs	in	Westchester,	Dutchess,	and	Putnam	Counties;	

 Riverine (associated	with	rivers,	including	riverine	intertidal	upper/lower	perennial	and	 two	

occurrences	of	riverine	intermittent),	comprising	24	percent	of	NWI	wetlands	along	the	existing	

Empire	 Corridor	 (90/110	 Study	 Area)	 and	 25	 percent	 along	 the	 125	 Study	 Area,	 occurs	 in	

Westchester,	 Dutchess,	 Columbia,	 Rensselaer,	 Albany,	 Schenectady,	 Montgomery,	 Herkimer,	

Onondaga,	Cayuga,	Wayne,	Monroe,	Genesee,	Erie,	and	Niagara	Counties;	

 Freshwater (or Palustrine) Emergent Wetlands,	 comprising	 12	 percent	 of	 NWI	 wetlands	

along	 the	 existing	 Empire	 Corridor	 (90/110	 Study	 Area)	 and	 8	 percent	 along	 the	 125	 Study	

Area,	 occurs	 in	 Westchester,	 Putnam,	 Dutchess,	 Columbia,	 Rensselaer,	 Albany,	 Schenectady,	

Herkimer,	Onondaga,	Cayuga,	Wayne,	Monroe,	Genesee,	Erie,	and	Niagara	Counties;	

 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland	 (including	 specific	 classes	 of	 palustrine	 scrub	

shrub/forested),	 comprising	 32	 percent	 of	 NWI	 wetlands	 along	 the	 existing	 Empire	 Corridor	

(90/110	Study	Area)	and	33	percent	along	the	125	Study	Area,	occurs	in	Westchester,	Putnam,	

Dutchess,	 Columbia,	 Rensselaer,	 Albany,	 Schenectady,	 Montgomery,	 Herkimer,	 Onondaga,	

Cayuga,	Wayne,	Monroe,	Genesee,	Erie,	and	Niagara	Counties;	

 Freshwater Pond (specific	classes	largely	of	palustrine	unconsolidated	bottom),	comprising	3	

percent	of	NWI	wetlands	along	both	the	existing	Empire	Corridor	(90/110	Study	Area)	and	the	

125	 Study	 Area,	 occurs	 in	 Putnam,	 Dutchess,	 Columbia,	 Rensselaer,	 Albany,	 Schenectady,	

Montgomery,	 Onondaga,	 Cayuga,	 Wayne,	 Monroe,	 Genesee,	 Erie,	 and	 Niagara	 Counties;	 with	

several	occurrences	of	palustrine	aquatic	bottom	in	Wayne,	Genesee,	and	Niagara	Counties;	

 Lakes (larger	 than	 ponds,	 specific	 classes	 of	 lacustrine	 limnetic/littoral	 unconsolidated	

bottom),	 comprising	 3	 percent	 of	 NWI	 wetlands	 along	 the	 existing	 Empire	 Corridor	 (90/110	

Study	Area)	and	2	percent	along	the	125	Study	Area,	occurs	in	Dutchess,	Albany,	Schenectady,	

Montgomery,	Onondaga,	Cayuga,	Wayne,	Monroe,	Genesee,	and	Erie	Counties.	

State‐regulated	wetlands	in	the	study	area	include:		1)	Tidal	wetlands,	which	are	found	around	New	

York	City	and	up	the	Hudson	River,	and	2)	Freshwater	wetlands	which	are	found	on	river	and	lakes	

across	the	state.			

The	NYSDEC	tidal	wetland	categories	mapped	in	the	Empire	Corridor	include	open	water	(71%	of	

tidal	wetlands);	broad‐leaf	vegetation	(7%);	graminoid	vegetation	(14%);	coastal	shoals,	bars,	and	

mudflats	(1%);	vegetated	coastal	shoals,	bars,	and	mudflats	(1%);	swamp	shrub	(1%);	and	swamp	

tree	 (5%).		The	 tidal	wetland	percentages	 for	 the	90/110	and	 the	125	Study	Areas	are	 the	 same,	

although	 the	 mapped	 Adjacent	 Areas	 to	 Tidal	 Wetlands	 differ.	 	 The	 90/110	 Study	 Area	 had	

approximately	5,585	acres	of	mapped	Adjacent	Areas	to	Tidal	Wetlands.		The	125	Study	Area	had	

less	mapped	Adjacent	Areas	to	Tidal	Wetlands	at	5,459	acres.	

In	 the	 existing	 Empire	 Corridor	 (90/110	 Study	 area),	 NYSDEC	 freshwater	 wetlands	 include	 the	

highest	value	wetlands,	Class	I,	which	comprises	40	percent	of	total	NYSDEC	freshwater	wetlands.		

Class	 II	 wetlands	 comprises	 55	 percent	 of	 NYSDEC	 freshwater	 wetlands	 in	 the	 study	 area,	

compared	 to	 Class	 III	 (3%),	 and	 Class	 IV	 (2%)	 of	 total	 freshwater	 wetlands	 in	 the	 study	 area	

counties.	

In	 the	 125	 Study	 Area,	 NYSDEC	 freshwater	 wetlands	 include	 the	 highest	 value	 wetlands,	 Class	 I,	

which	comprises	55	percent	of	total	NYSDEC	freshwater	wetlands.		Class	II	wetlands	comprises	32	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-85 

New York State Department of Transportation 

percent	of	NYSDEC	freshwater	wetlands	in	the	study	area,	compared	to	Class	III	(13%),	and	Class	IV	

(less	than	1%)	of	total	freshwater	wetlands	in	the	study	area	counties.	

A	detailed	discussion	by	county	of	the	existing	 federal	and	state	wetlands	along	the	90/110	Study	

Area	and	the	125	Study	Area	is	presented	in	Appendix	G.9.			

4.10.4. Environmental Consequences

This	 Tier	 1	 preliminary	 assessment	 describes	 potential	 impacts	 to	 mapped	 areas	 of	 National	

Wetlands	 Inventory	 (NWI)	 and	 New	 York	 State	 Department	 of	 Environmental	 Conservation	

(NYSDEC)	State	Regulated	Wetlands.		Although	NWI	and	NYSDEC	wetlands	are	sometimes	mapped	

as	overlapping	 the	existing	mainline	 track	bed,	it	is	unlikely	that	wetlands	would	be	 found	within	

the	 railbed;	 however,	 there	would	be	potential	 for	wetlands	 to	 occur	within	 the	existing	 right‐of‐

way.	 	 Therefore,	 work	 conducted	within	 and	 beyond	 the	 right‐of‐way	 may	 have	 the	 potential	 to	

impact	wetlands.			

Work	 activities	 such	 as	 track	 widening	 for	 new	 track,	 road	 realignment,	 station	 improvements,	

culvert	 widening,	 and	 other	 ground	 disturbance	 have	 the	 potential	 to	 affect	 wetlands	 through	

impacts	 such	as	 dredging	 or	 filling.	 	Direct	impacts	 can	 be	 temporary	 or	 permanent.	 	Temporary	

impacts	may	include	temporary	placement	of	fill	material	into	wetlands	or	other	water	features,	the	

removal	of	 vegetation	 from	areas	 that	would	be	later	re‐graded	and	re‐seeded,	 temporary	loss	of	

aquatic	habitat,	and	disturbance	and	displacement	of	wildlife	during	construction.		These	impacts	

would	be	associated	with	construction	activities	such	as	temporary	staging	areas	and	construction	

access	roads.	

In	addition	to	temporary	and	permanent	direct	impacts,	indirect	impacts	to	wetlands,	waterways,	

and	riparian	buffers	are	 those	 that	are	caused	by	 the	proposed	action	but	occur	later	in	 time,	but	

are	reasonably	foreseeable.		An	example	of	an	indirect	impact	would	be	a	wetland	whose	hydrologic	

regime	is	altered	from	the	fill	of	an	adjacent	wetland.					

The	 Base,	 90A,	 and	 90B	 Alternatives	 would	 involve	 work	 largely	 within	 the	 right‐of‐way,	 with	

tracks	being	added	in	 the	location	of	 the	 former	 track	beds	or	existing	access	roads,	and	minimal	

impacts	 to	 wetlands	 would	 be	 anticipated.	 	 Alternative	 110	 may	 have	 more	impacts	 to	 wetlands	

than	 the	 Base	 Alternative	 or	 Alternatives	 90A	 and	 90B	 because	 proposed	 work	 would	 involve	

activities	 further	 from	 the	 current	 mainline	 track.	 	 Alternative	 125	 would	 involve	 even	 greater	

impacts	to	wetlands	as	it	would	be	located	on	new	alignment	through	primarily	undeveloped	and	

rural	areas.	

The	sections	below	identify	the	areas	where	improvements	or	new	track	would	be	constructed	in	or	

adjacent	 to	 mapped	 wetlands.	 	 There	 would	 be	 potential	 impacts,	 both	 direct	 and	 indirect,	 as	

described	 above;	 however,	 the	 specifics	 of	 impacts	 will	 be	 documented	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Tier	 2	

analysis.	

Base Alternative

The	Base	Alternative	represents	the	baseline	condition	against	which	the	alternatives	are	measured	

and	 incorporates	 improvements	 that	 have	 already	 been	 programmed.	 	 The	 Base	 Alternative	 will	

maintain	weekday	service	frequencies	and	will	provide	a	program	of	eight	improvements	in	track	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-86 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

and	station	infrastructure.			

Empire Corridor South

The	 Base	 Alternative	 will	include	 signal	 and	 grade	 crossing	 improvements	 along	 the	 64	miles	 of	

Empire	 Corridor	 South	 (ES‐3	 and	 ES‐1,	MPs	 75.8	 to	 140)	 north	 of	 Poughkeepsie	 to	 just	 south	 of	

Albany‐Rensselaer	Station.		The	proposed	work	areas	will	cross	approximately	77	mapped	NWI	and	

NYSDEC	wetlands.		Most	 of	 these	wetlands	are	classified	 through	 these	mapping	 systems	as	 tidal	

and	 are	 likely	 associated	 with	 the	 Hudson	 River.	 	 Crossings	 are	 generally	 small	 areas	 of	 overlap	

connected	to	larger	adjacent	mapped	areas.		In	addition	to	the	numerous	small	crossings,	there	are	

several	areas	of	larger	wetland	systems	 that	 the	alignment	will	cross.		These	will	include	an	area	

around	Stockport	Creek	(MPs	117.5	to	118.5)	and	Mill	Creek	(MPs	125	to	127).		Proposed	work	will	

primarily	 involve	 signal	 upgrades	 and	 work	 in	 the	 existing	 rail	 bed;	 therefore,	 it	 is	 unlikely	 that	

impacts	will	occur	 to	wetlands	along	 this	segment	 from	signal	upgrades.		There	could	be	minimal	

impact	 to	wetlands	at	grade‐crossings	if	work	will	involve	widening	roads	into	wetland	areas.		 In	

addition,	construction	of	at‐grade	crossings	where	wetlands	are	present	will	have	the	potential	to	

temporarily	 impact	 wetlands;	 however,	 temporary	 construction	 disturbance	 will	 be	 minimal	 if	

proper	BMPs	were	to	be	used.	

The	Base	Alternative	will	also	involve	the	addition	of	a	 fourth	track	and	platform	extension	at	the	

Rensselaer	 Station	 near	 the	 Albany	 county	 line	 (ES‐9,	 MPs	 141	 to	 143).	 	 A	 wetland	 feature	

associated	 with	 Mill	 Creek	 is	 mapped	 between	 MPs	 141	 and	 142	 and	 is	 crossed	 by	 the	 tracks.		

Depending	on	design,	work	proposed	at	this	crossing	will	have	the	potential	to	impact	this	feature.	

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The	 Base	 Alternative	 will	 involve	 17	 miles	 of	 second	 track	 between	 the	 Albany‐Rensselaer	 and	

Schenectady	stations	(ES‐10,	MPs	143	to	160),	as	well	as	reconstruction	of	the	Schenectady	Station		

(EW‐01,	MP	159.8).		There	are	approximately	five	mapped	wetland	areas	that	cross	this	stretch	of	

tracks,	 including	 a	 crossing	 of	 the	 Hudson	 River	 and	 wetlands	 associated	 with	 Lisha	 Kill	 and	 its	

tributaries	between	MPs	153	and	155.		All	these	features	will	have	the	potential	to	be	impacted	by	

work	involving	ground	disturbance	within	these	features.	

Track	improvements	in	Syracuse	(EW‐6,	MPs	287	to	291)	will	not	cross	any	mapped	wetland	areas	

and	 will	 not	 likely	 involve	 impacts	 to	 wetlands.	 	 The	 Rochester	 Station	 track	 and	 platform	

improvements	(EW‐19,	MPs	368	to	373)	will	cross	mapped	wetlands	along	the	Genesee	River	(MP	

371.5).	 	 This	 work	 will	 have	 the	 potential	 to	 directly	 or	 indirectly	 impact	 wetlands	 through	

dredging,	 filling	 or	 construction	 activities	 at	 this	 crossing.	 	 	 Proposed	improvements	 for	 the	 new	

Niagara	Falls	Intermodal	Transportation	Center	(EW‐13)	will	be	located	within	an	urban	area	and	

will	not	likely	involve	impacts	to	wetlands.	

Alternative 90A

With	 Alternative	 90A,	 Empire	 Service	 would	 provide	 increased	 frequency	 of	 service	 as	 well	 as	

improved	 travel	 times,	with	a	program	of	20	improvements	in	 track,	station,	and	signalization,	in	

addition	to	improvements	proposed	under	the	Base	Alternative	previously	described.		New	tracks	

proposed	 under	 this	 alternative	 would	 not	 extend	 more	 than	 15	 feet	 laterally	 from	 the	 current	

mainline	tracks.		Although	some	of	this	work	would	be	conducted	within	the	existing	right‐of‐way,	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-87 

New York State Department of Transportation 

ground	disturbance	in	proposed	work	areas	that	overlap	mapped	wetlands,	either	inside	or	outside	

the	 existing	 right‐of‐way,	 could	 cause	 wetland	 impacts	 through	 dredging,	 filling	 or	 other	

disturbance.			

Empire Corridor South

Alternative	90A	would	include	construction	of	four	miles	of	second	track	through	urbanized	areas	

of	 Manhattan	 (SRP‐1,	 MPs	 9	 to	 13)	 and	 1.4	 miles	 of	 new	 track	 extending	 under	 the	 Tappan	 Zee	

Bridge	(SRP‐2,	23.8‐25.2).		The	Hudson	River	is	adjacent	to	the	rail	line	throughout	these	proposed	

improvement	 areas.	 	 One	 mapped	NWI	 and	NYSDEC	 wetlands	 associated	 with	 the	 Hudson	 River	

and	 the	Harlem	 River	 confluence	 would	 be	located	in	 the	 proposed	 work	 area.	 	 Additional	 track	

construction	 over	 the	 Harlem	 River	 (MP	 10)	 could	 have	 the	 potential	 to	 temporarily	 or	

permanently	 impact	 mapped	 wetlands	 at	 this	 location.	 	 Improvements	 under	 the	 Tappan	 Zee	

Bridge	would	be	within	the	current	right‐of‐way	and	impacts	to	wetlands	would	be	unlikely.			

With	 Alternative	 90A,	 signal	improvements	 proposed	 along	 43	miles	 (MPs	 32.8	 and	 75.8)	 would	

cross	mapped	NWI	and	NYSDEC	wetlands	approximately	30	 times.		Crossings	are	generally	small	

areas	of	overlap	connected	to	larger	adjacent	mapped	areas	associated	with	the	Hudson	River	and	

its	 tributaries	 to	 the	 east.	 	 Proposed	 work	 would	 primarily	 involve	 signal	 upgrades	 within	 the	

existing	 rail	 bed;	 therefore,	 it	 is	 unlikely	 that	 impacts	 would	 occur	 to	 wetlands	 for	 these	

improvements.				

New	 third	 track	in	Dutchess	County	 (SRP‐3,	MPs	53	 to	63)	would	cross	wetlands	associated	with	

Breakneck	 Brook	 (MP	 54)	 and,	 depending	 on	 construction	 design,	 a	 cove	 at	 the	 confluence	 of	

Fishkill	 Creek	 and	 the	 Hudson	 River	 (MPs	 57.5	 to	 57.75).	 In	 addition,	 improvements	 at	 the	

Poughkeepsie	Yard/Storage	Facility	(MPs	71	 to	75.8)	would	cross	Sunfish	Cove	and	its	associated	

wetlands.	 	 Ground	 disturbance	 in	 the	 above‐mentioned	 work	 areas	 that	 overlap	 wetlands	 could	

cause	impacts	through	dredging,	filling	or	other	disturbance.	

North	 of	 Poughkeepsie	 and	 south	 of	 Albany‐Rensselaer	 Station,	 improvements	 proposed	 would	

include	rock	slope	stabilization	(ES‐04,	five	locations	between	MPs	105.3	to	130,	one	location	at	MP	

119,	and	4	locations	at	MPs	128.1‐130),	three	new	control	points	(ES‐05,	MPs	82,	99	and	136),	and	

station	 improvements	 at	 Rhinecliff	 Station	 (high‐level	 platforms)	 (SRP‐11,	 MP	 89.2)	 and	 Hudson	

Station	 (new	 Ferry	 Street	 Bridge,	 new	 platform,	 and	 track	 realignments,	 ES‐14,	 MPS	 114.5‐115).		

The	alignment	would	cross	mapped	wetland	areas	approximately	7	times	for	the	above‐mentioned	

improvements.		It	is	anticipated	that	the	new	control	points	and	station	improvements	would	occur	

largely	within	the	right‐of‐way	or	current	station	footprint,	and	would	not	likely	involve	impacts	to	

wetlands.	 	 Depending	 on	 design	 of	 rock	 slope	 stabilization,	 there	 could	 be	 the	 potential	 to	

permanently	and	temporarily	impact	wetlands	and	waters	associated	with	the	Hudson	River	and	its	

tributaries	through	dredging,	filling	or	other	construction	impacts.			

Alternative	90A	would	include	 the	replacement	of	 the	Livingston	Avenue	Bridge	over	 the	Hudson	

River	(ES‐15,	MP	143).		Depending	on	design,	construction	(such	as	new	abutments,	bridge	piers,	

rip‐rap	placement,	dredging	or	filling)	over	and	within	the	Hudson	River	could	have	the	potential	to	

temporarily	or	permanently	impact	mapped	wetlands	at	this	location.	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-88 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Track	improvements	 along	 the	 Empire	 Corridor	West/Niagara	 Branch	would	include	 10	miles	 of	

third	 track	between	MPs	169	and	179	(EW‐14a)	and	Amsterdam	Station	improvements	along	 the	

west	end	of	this	segment	(EIS‐1,	MP	177.6).		Wetlands	generally	associated	with	the	Mohawk	River	

are	mapped	as	abutting	the	right‐of‐way	on	its	southern	edge	for	a	majority	of	the	proposed	work	

areas	along	 this	10	mile	 segment	and	cross	 the	alignment	 three	times	around	MP	 178.		Although	

this	 work	 would	 be	 conducted	 within	 the	 existing	 right‐of‐way,	 ground	 disturbance	 and	

construction	 in	 proposed	 work	 areas	 that	 overlap	 wetland	 areas	 could	 cause	 wetland	 impacts	

through	dredging	 or	 filling	activities.		Updates	 to	 three	control	points	 (EW‐05,	MPs	 175,	239	and	

248)	would	not	cross	any	wetlands	and	would	not	likely	involve	impacts	to	wetlands.	

Alternative	90A	would	include	Syracuse	Station	track	improvements	(EIS‐6,	MPs	290	to	294),	and	

third	 track	improvements	along	11	miles	(EW‐16,	MPs	373	 to	382)	west	of	 the	Rochester	station.		

Work	 for	 the	Syracuse	Station	would	 be	adjacent	 to	mapped	wetlands	associated	with	 Ley	Creek	

and	Onondaga	Lake	and	would	also	include	crossings	of	two	mapped	wetlands:		one	associated	with	

the	Barge	Canal	and	one	associated	with	Onondaga	Lake.		West	of	the	Rochester	Station,	proposed	

improvements	would	cross	two	mapped	NWI	and	NYSDEC	wetlands	associated	with	the	Erie	Canal	

(MP	374.5),	and	a	 tributary	of	Black	Creek	(MP	379.5).		Therefore,	reconstruction	of	 the	Syracuse	

Station	 and	 third	 track	 improvements	 west	 of	 Rochester	 would	 have	 the	 potential	 to	 directly	 or	

indirectly	impact	wetlands	through	dredging,	filling,	or	construction	activities	at	these	crossings.		

The	 addition	 of	 a	 third	 track	 is	 proposed	 along	 11	 miles	 located	 largely	 west	 of	 the	 designated	

urban	 area	 around	 Rochester	 (EW‐20,	 MPs	 382	 to	 393).	 	 Mapped	 wetland	 areas,	 primarily	

associated	with	Black	Creek	and	its	tributaries,	would	be	crossed	approximately	four	times	at	these	

proposed	work	locations.		Although	this	work	would	be	conducted	within	the	existing	right‐of‐way,	

ground	 disturbance	 and	 construction	 in	 proposed	 work	 areas	 that	 overlap	 wetland	 areas	 could	

cause	wetland	impacts	through	dredging	or	filling	activities.		

One	 small	 mapped	 wetland	 area	 would	 be	 crossed	 at	 the	 proposed	 work	 area	 of	 station	

improvements	 of	 the	 Buffalo‐Depew	 Station	 (EIS‐10,	 MPs	 429	 to	 433).	 	 In	 addition,	 along	 the	

proposed	 double	 tracking	work	area	 (EW‐17,	MPs	QDN17	 to	QDN23.2	along	 the	Niagara	Branch,	

work	would	cross	three	mapped	wetland	area	associated	with	Bergholtz	and	Cayuga	Creeks.		Work	

conducted	within	these	mapped	wetland	areas	described	above	would	have	the	potential	to	directly	

or	indirectly	impact	 the	wetland	 through	dredging,	 filling	or	construction	activities.		Niagara	Falls	

Maintenance	Facility	and	track	improvements	(EW‐18	and	EIS‐12,	MPs	25	to	28)	would	not	cross	

any	mapped	wetlands	areas	and	would	not	likely	involve	impacts	to	wetlands.			

Alternative 90B

Alternative	90B	would	match	the	improved	frequency	of	service	provided	with	Alternative	90A	and	

would	include	the	90A	improvements.		Alternative	90B	would	provide	further	reductions	in	travel	

time,	by	adding	273	miles	of	dedicated	third	track	and	sections	of	 fourth	track	(totaling	39	miles)	

between	 Schenectady	 and	 Buffalo.	 	 The	 new	 tracks	 would	 be	 offset	 15	 feet	 from	 the	 existing	

railroad	and	from	each	other.		Double	track	along	five	miles	of	the	Niagara	Branch	is	also	proposed.		

Road	 realignment,	 access	 road	 construction,	 and	 culvert	 improvements	 are	 also	 proposed	 under	

Alternative	90B	within	and	outside	of	the	right‐of‐way,	although	the	location	of	this	proposed	work	

would	be	further	refined	in	the	Tier	2	process.	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-89 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Empire Corridor South

No	additional	work	within	Empire	Corridor	South,	other	than	for	Alternative	90A,	is	proposed,	and	

there	would	be	no	potential	for	additional	impacts	to	wetlands	in	this	area	for	Alternative	90B.	

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

NWI	and	NYSDEC	have	mapped	several	wetland	features	within	the	proposed	work	areas	of	third	

and	fourth	track	installation	associated	with	Alternative	90B,	both	within	and	outside	of	the	current	

right‐of‐way.		There	would	be	approximately	118	locations	where	new	third	or	fourth	track	would	

cross	mapped	wetland	areas	and	dredging	or	filling	activities	from	construction	of	new	track	could	

cause	 wetland	 impacts.	 	 In	 addition,	 construction	 where	 wetlands	 are	 present	 would	 have	 the	

potential	 to	 temporarily	impact	wetlands	 through	staging	and	storage	of	equipment.		These	areas	

are	further	described	below.	

In	 Schenectady	 County,	 new	 track	 proposed	 for	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	 three	 mapped	

wetlands	associated	with	 the	Hudson	River	(MP	160.5),	an	unnamed	 tributary	(MP	162.75)	and	a	

small	wetland	area	associated	with	Verf	Kill	near	the	western	end	of	the	county	(MP	167.75).	

Proposed	third	and	fourth	track	for	Alternative	90B	would	cross	approximately	15	mapped	wetland	

areas	 in	 Montgomery	 County.	 	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 closely	 follow	 the	 northern	 banks	 of	 the	

Mohawk	River	through	Montgomery	County,	and	all	the	mapped	wetlands	areas	are	associated	with	

the	Mohawk	River	or	its	tributaries	to	the	north.		Most	of	the	wetlands	that	would	be	crossed	by	the	

third	 or	 fourth	 track	 improvements	 are	 small	 individual	 areas;	 however	 there	 are	 several	 areas	

where	multiple	crossings	are	part	of	a	larger	complex	of	wetlands	(MPs	177.5	to	178.75,	188.75	to	

189.5	and	193	 to	194).		Proposed	 third	 track	would	only	cross	one	mapped	wetland	in	Herkimer	

County	associated	with	 the	Mohawk	River/Erie	Canal	 (MPs	232	 to	232.5).		There	would	likely	be	

more	wetlands	in	this	area;	however,	NWI	digital	data	was	not	available	for	this	county.	

There	would	be	approximately	18	crossings	of	wetlands	in	Oneida	County	with	the	addition	of	new	

track	for	Alternative	90B.		In	the	eastern	half	of	the	county,	the	majority	of	wetlands	are	associated	

with	 the	 Mohawk	 River	 and	 Erie	 Canal.	 	 These	 include	 numerous	 small	 crossings	 of	 larger	

complexes	 north	 and	 south	 of	 the	 proposed	 alignment.	 	 After	 passing	 Rome	 the	 proposed	

alternative	 would	 move	 south	 of	 the	 Mohawk	 River/Erie	 Canal	 and	 would	 cross	 numerous	

wetlands	associated	with	Mud	Creek	(MPs	256	to	257.5),	Stony	Creek	(MP	261)	and	tributaries	of	

these	creeks.		In	Madison	County,	proposed	new	track	would	only	cross	two	mapped	wetland	areas.		

One	small	area	associated	with	and	unnamed	pond	(MP	266)	and	one	associated	with	Chittenango	

Creek	(MP	276.5).		

In	 Onondaga	 County,	 new	 track	 associated	 with	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	 approximately	 20	

mapped	wetland	areas.		Around	Onondaga	Lake,	Alternative	90B	would	cross	several	small	wetland	

areas	associated	with	 the	Old	Barge	Canal	and	 the	lake	 (MPs	291	 to	293),	before	heading	 further	

west	and	crossing	numerous	small	wetland	areas	associated	with	Nine	Mile	Creek,	Dead	Man	Creek	

and	other	tributaries.		Several	crossings	within	larger	complexes	are	associated	with	White	Bottom	

Creek	and	the	Erie	Canal	(MPs	301.5	to	304)	and	Carpenters	Brook	and	the	Old	Erie	Canal	(MPs	305	

to	307.5).			

In	 Cayuga	 County,	 new	 track	 from	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	 wetlands	 approximately	 seven	

times.	 	Most	 of	 these	 are	 small	individual	wetlands	 associated	with	 Putnam	 Brook,	Spring	 Brook	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-90 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

and	 Swamp	 Brook;	 however,	 the	 alignment	 would	 cross	 a	 larger	 complex	 associated	 with	 the	

Seneca	River	and	Hog	Island	Wildlife	Management	in	the	western	portion	of	the	county	(MPs	318	to	

320).	 	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	 mapped	 wetlands	 approximately	 19	 times	 in	Wayne	 County.		

The	majority	of	these	crossings	would	be	over	small	wetlands	associated	with	the	Erie	Canal,	Black	

Creek,	Clyde	River,	Ganargua	Creek	and	Red	Creek	and	their	tributaries.			

Alternative	 90B	would	 cross	mapped	wetlands	approximately	 12	 times	in	Monroe	 County.	 In	 the	

eastern	 portion	 of	 the	 county,	 the	 alignment	 would	 cross	 just	 one	 wetland	 area	 associated	 with	

Irondequoit	 Creek	 (MP	 362.75).	 	 In	 the	 western	 half	 of	 the	 county,	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	

several	small	wetland	areas	as	well	as	wetlands	associated	with	the	Genesee	River,	the	Erie	Canal	

and	Black	Creek.	

In	 Genesee	 County,	 new	 track	 for	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	 mapped	 wetlands	 areas	

approximately	16	 times.		The	alignment	would	cross	several	small	wetland	areas	as	well	as	small	

areas	 associated	 with	 Robins	 Brook,	 Black	 Creek,	 Tonawanda	 Creek,	 Bowen	 Creek	 and	 Murder	

Creek.		 In	addition,	Alternative	90B	would	cross	mapped	wetlands	several	 times	 through	a	larger	

complex	associated	with	a	tributary	of	Murder	Creek	(MPs	409	to	412.5).	

New	 track	 for	 Alternative	 90B	 would	 cross	 mapped	 wetlands	 approximately	 five	 times	 in	 Erie	

County.		Most	of	these	crossings	would	be	over	small	wetland	areas	(MPs	418.5	to	418.75,	421.75,	

427	to	428.5	and	429.75).		One	crossing	would	be	over	wetlands	associated	with	Ellicott	Creek	(MP	

422.25).	

Among	the	rail	stations	where	improvements	are	proposed,	Schenectady,	Utica,	and	Rome	stations	

are	located	in	urban	areas	and	there	are	no	wetlands	mapped	adjacent	to	them.		A	NYSDEC	wetland	

is	mapped	 as	 abutting	 the	 right‐of‐way	 on	its	 southern	 edge	 to	the	 northwest	 of	 the	 Amsterdam	

Station,	and	a	NYSDEC	wetland	is	mapped	as	abutting	the	Syracuse	Station.		Depending	on	design,	

these	 wetlands	 features	 would	 have	 the	 potential	 to	 be	 directly	 or	 indirectly	 impacted	 by	 any	

dredging	or	filling	associated	with	proposed	work	under	Alternative	90B.	

Alternative 110

With	 Alternative	 110,	 Empire	 Service	 would	 match	 the	 increased	 frequency	 of	 service	 for	

Alternative	 90B	 and	 would	 provide	 further	 improvements	 in	 travel	 times,	 with	 273	 miles	 of	

exclusive	third	track	between	Schenectady	and	Buffalo.		This	track	would	be	further	offset	30	feet,	

and	additional	infrastructure	improvements	included,	to	accommodate	higher	speeds.		Alternative	

110	 would	 also	 add	 59	 miles	 of	 fourth	 track	 in	 six	 locations.	 	 Road	 realignment,	 access	 road	

construction,	 and	 culvert	 improvements	 are	 also	 proposed	 under	 Alternative	 110	 within	 and	

outside	of	the	right‐of‐way,	although	the	location	of	this	proposed	work	would	be	further	refined	in	

the	Tier	2	process.	

Empire Corridor South

No	additional	work	within	Empire	Corridor	South,	other	than	for	Alternative	90A,	is	proposed,	and	

there	would	be	no	potential	for	additional	impacts	to	wetlands	in	this	area	for	Alternative	110.	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-91 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

NWI	and	NYSDEC	have	mapped	several	wetland	features	within	the	proposed	work	areas	of	third	

and	fourth	track	installation	associated	with	Alternative	110,	both	within	and	outside	of	the	current	

right‐of‐way.		Dredging	or	filling	activities	in	these	areas	could	cause	wetland	impacts.		In	addition,	

construction	where	wetlands	are	present	would	have	the	potential	to	temporarily	impact	wetlands	

through	staging	and	storage	of	equipment.			

Since	 the	 third	 track	 would	 be	 situated	 farther	 from	 the	 existing	 tracks	 than	 Alternative	 90B	 to	

accommodate	110	mph	MAS,	there	would	be	slightly	more	wetland	crossings	(137)	than	identified	

in	 Alternative	 90B;	 however,	 all	 crossings	 would	 be	 associated	 with	 the	 same	 waterways	 and	

systems	identified	in	the	90B.		Alternative	110	would	cross	the	same	number	of	mapped	wetlands	

in	 Montgomery,	 Herkimer,	 Onondaga	 and	 Erie	 Counties	 as	 the	 90B,	 and	 there	 would	 be	 no	

additional	impacts	 (as	identified	at	 the	Tier	 1	level)	 to	wetlands	in	 these	counties	 for	Alternative	

110.	

In	 Schenectady	 County,	 Alternative	 110	 would	 cross	 only	 two	mapped	 wetland	 areas.	 	 Proposed	

new	 track	 of	 Alternative	 110	 would	 cross	 mapped	 wetlands	 approximately	 26	 times	 in	 Oneida	

County,	three	times	in	Madison	County,	nine	times	in	Cayuga	County,	21	times	in	Wayne	County,	17	

times	in	Monroe	County	and	18	times	in	Genesee	County.		

Alternative 125

Alternative	125	would	maintain	existing	service	on	Empire	Corridor	West	and	would	provide	more	

frequent	service	(compared	to	the	other	alternatives)	on	exclusive,	grade‐separated	tracks	on	new	

alignment	in	most	 areas	 between	Albany‐Rensselaer	 and	 Buffalo.	 	Alternative	 125	would	include	

Alternative	90A	improvements	along	the	Hudson	Line	and	Niagara	Branch.			

Areas	that	are	mapped	as	wetlands	within	the	proposed	Alternative	125	corridor	could	be	impacted	

directly	by	new	crossings	for	construction	of	rail	infrastructure.		Wetlands	outside	of	the	proposed	

Alternative	125	corridor	could	be	indirectly	impacted	by	modifications	of	local	hydrology	through	

installation	of	new	tracks.		Impacts	would	be	more	likely	to	occur	than	with	the	Base,	90A,	90B,	and	

110	Alternatives.	

Empire Corridor South

No	 new	 improvements,	 beyond	 what	 is	 proposed	 for	 Alternative	 90A,	 would	 be	 proposed	 for	

Alternative	 125	 along	 the	majority	 of	 Empire	 Corridor	 South.	 	However,	 roughly	 one	mile	 of	 the	

proposed	125	mph	track	would	extend	south	from	Albany‐Rensselaer	Station	to	cross	the	Hudson	

River.		This	work	would	have	the	potential	to	impact	areas	of	wetlands	associated	with	this	portion	

of	the	Hudson	River.		Depending	on	design,	wetlands	could	be	impacted	at	this	location	as	a	result	

of	activities	such	as	ground	disturbance,	dredging	or	filling	of	the	wetlands.	

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative	125	would	involve	construction	of	a	total	of	236	miles	of	track	on	new	alignment	along	

three	different	segments:		Rensselaer	to	Syracuse,	Syracuse	to	Rochester,	and	Rochester	to	Buffalo.		

Alternative	125	also	would	include	new	right‐of‐way	in	most	areas,	but	would	merge	back	with	the	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-92 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Empire	 Corridor	 over	 two	 15‐	 and	 16‐mile	 segments	 centered	 on	 Syracuse	 and	 Rochester,	

respectively.			

Installation	of	the	new	tracks	proposed	for	the	Alternative	125	would	have	the	potential	to	impact	a	

number	 of	 wetlands	 mapped	 by	 both	 NWI	 and	 NYSDEC,	 and	 more	 wetlands	 overall	 than	

Alternatives	 90A,	 90B,	 or	 110	 alone.	 	 In	 addition	 to	 wetlands	 that	 could	 be	 impacted	 by	

implementation	of	the	Base	Alternative,	all	of	the	wetlands	mapped	as	falling	within	the	proposed	

alignment	 could	 be	 impacted	 by	 Alternative	 125.	 	 There	 would	 be	 approximately	 177	 locations	

where	new	track	would	cross	mapped	wetland	areas.		These	areas	are	further	described	below.	

In	 Schenectady	 County,	 Alternative	 125	 would	 cross	 three	 larger	 mapped	 wetlands	 that	 have	

developed	 along	 the	 New	 York	 State	 Thruway	 between	 MPs	 QH158.5	 and	 QH160.5.	 	 With	 the	

exception	of	small	wetlands	around	MP	QH163.8,	MPs	QH171	to	QH172	and	MP	QH173.5,	no	other	

mapped	 wetlands	 would	 be	 crossed	 by	 the	 125	 Study	 Area	 in	 the	 county.	 	 In	 Schoharie	 County,	

Alternative	 125	 would	 not	 cross	 any	 mapped	 wetlands;	 however,	 the	 alignment	 would	 closely	

adjoin	the	northern	banks	of	Schoharie	Creek	(MPs	QH174	to	QH176)	as	well	as	several	tributaries	

of	Schoharie	Creek,	and	it	is	likely	that	there	would	be	wetlands	in	these	areas.	

In	 Montgomery	 County,	 there	 would	 be	 one	 crossing	 of	 a	 larger	 wetland	 mapped	 between	 MPs	

QH181	and	QH183.5	associated	with	Fly	Creek,	and	smaller	crossings	of	wetlands	associated	with	

tributaries	of	the	Mohawk	River	between	MPs	QH194.5‐QH196	and	at	the	county	line	(MP	QH202).		

In	 Herkimer	 County,	 there	 would	 be	 several	 small	 crossings	 of	 small	 wetlands	 at	 roughly	 MPs	

QH203.5,	QH212.75,	QH213.25,	and	QH225.			

Alternative	 125	 would	 have	 approximately	 nine	 crossings	 of	 larger	 interconnected	 wetlands	

associated	with	Deans	Creek,	Beaver	Meadow	Creek	and	other	tributaries	between	MPs	QH240	and	

QH247	in	Oneida	County.		After	crossing	Oneida	Creek	at	the	eastern	Madison	County	border,	the	

Alternative	125	would	cross	two	small	wetland	areas	(MPs	QH249.5	and	QH249.75).		There	would	

be	no	other	wetland	crossings	in	Madison	County.	

In	Onondaga	County,	the	125	Study	Area	crosses	approximately	20	mapped	wetland	areas.		In	the	

eastern	 portion	 of	 the	 county,	 there	 is	 a	 large	 wetland	 system	 between	 the	 Old	 Erie	 Canal	 and	

Chittenango	 Creek	 (MPs	QH264.75	 to	QH271)	 that	Alternative	 125	would	 cross	 numerous	 times.		

Around	Onondaga	Lake,	Alternative	125	would	cross	wetlands	associated	with	the	Old	Barge	Canal	

and	 the	 lake	 (MP	 QH278.5),	 before	 heading	 further	 west	 and	 crossing	 numerous	 small	 wetlands	

associated	with	Nine	Mile	Creek,	Dead	Man	Creek,	Cross	Lake,	Seneca	River	and	other	 tributaries	

(MPs	QH283.75	to	QH295).	

Alternative	 125	 would	 cross	 approximately	 16	 individual	 wetlands	 associated	 with	 roughly	 11	

wetland	 systems	in	 Cayuga	 County.	 	Most	 of	 these	 systems	 are	 associated	with	 tributaries	 of	 the	

Seneca	River,	including	Muskrat	Creek	and	 the	Howland	 Island	Wildlife	Management	Area	 on	 the	

west	end	of	the	county.	

In	Wayne	County,	wetlands	are	more	pervasive,	where	there	would	be	approximately	47	crossings	

of	mapped	 wetland	 areas	 under	Alternative	 125.	 	 The	majority	 of	 these	 crossings	would	 be	 over	

small	 wetlands	 associated	 with	 tributaries	 of	 the	 Erie	 Canal,	 Black	 Creek,	 Clyde	 River,	 Ganargua	

Creek	and	Red	Creek.		 In	Monroe	County,	Alternative	125	would	cross	approximately	23	mapped	

wetlands.		In	the	eastern	portion	of	 the	county,	the	alignment	would	cross	several	small	wetlands	

associated	with	 Thomas	 Creek	 and	its	 tributaries	 (MPs	QH342	 to	QH346.5).	 	 It	would	 then	 cross	

wetlands	 associated	 with	 Irondequoit	 Creek	 (MP	 QH347.5),	 the	 Genesee	 River	 (MP	 QH356),	 the	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-93 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Erie	Canal	 (MP	QH359)	and	a	large	 system	of	wetlands	associated	with	 Little	Black	Creek	and	its	

tributaries	(MPs	QH360	to	QH367.5).	

Alternative	125	would	cross	approximately	27	mapped	wetlands	in	Genesee	County.		In	the	eastern	

portion	of	 the	county,	 the	alignment	would	cross	several	areas	of	wetlands	associated	with	Black	

Creek	and	Bergen	Swamp	(MPs	QH373	to	QH378).		Bergen	Swamp	in	Genesee	County	is	one	of	the	

largest	mapped	wetlands	 that	 fall	within	 the	proposed	Alternative	125	alignment.		The	alignment	

would	 then	 cross	 isolated	 wetlands	 areas	 associated	 with	 Oak	 Orchard	 Creek,	 Murder	 Creek,	

Tonawanda	Creek	and	tributaries	through	the	rest	of	the	county.

There	 would	 be	 approximately	 15	 wetland	 crossings	 in	 Erie	 County.	 	 There	 is	 a	 larger	 wetland	

system	associated	with	Ransom	Creek	(MPs	QH406.5	to	QH409);	however,	most	of	the	crossings	in	

Erie	County	are	small	and	do	not	appear	to	be	associated	with	major	waterways.		

As	 mentioned	 previously,	 the	 areas	 above	 that	 are	 mapped	 as	 wetlands	 within	 the	 proposed	

Alternative	 125	 corridor	 could	 be	 impacted	 directly	 by	 new	 crossings	 for	 construction	 of	 rail	

infrastructure.	 	 Impacts	 such	as	 dredging	 or	 filling	 of	wetlands	 or	 hydrologic	modifications	 could	

negatively	affect	wetlands	in	 the	proposed	alignment	corridor.		Wetlands	outside	of	 the	proposed	

Alternative	125	corridor	could	be	indirectly	impacted	by	modifications	of	local	hydrology	through	

installation	of	new	tracks.

4.10.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Under	the	Section	404	of	the	CWA,	impacts	to	waters	of	the	U.S.,	including	wetlands	and	open	water	

features,	must	be	avoided,	minimized,	or	mitigated	(in	order	of	preference)	to	ensure	that	there	is	

no	net	loss	of	functions	and	values	of	jurisdictional	wetlands	(33	United	States	Code	1251	et	seq.).		

To	the	extent	practicable,	future	planning	and	design	will	incorporate	avoidance	and	minimization	

of	impacts	to	known	wetland	areas.		This	assessment	will	be	performed	at	all	locations,	but	special	

attention	 will	 be	 focused	 on	 ecologically	 significant	 areas	 (for	 instance,	 the	 Montezuma	 Marshes	

National	Wildlife	 Refuge/Northern	Montezuma	Wildlife	Management	 Area	 and	 Albany	 Pine	 Bush	

Preserve)	and	other	 federally	and	state‐protected	wildlife	management	areas.		Means	 of	avoiding	

and	 minimizing	 impacts	 in	 these	 sensitive	 locations	 will	 be	 identified.	 	 Where	 avoidance	 and	

minimization	 would	 not	 be	 practicable,	 mitigation	 for	 impacts	 to	 wetlands	 could	 be	 achieved	

through	the	use	of	temporary	and	permanent	Best	Management	Practices	(BMPs).			

Temporary	 BMPs	 would	 include	 implementing	 measures	 specified	 in	 the	 Stormwater	 Pollution	

Prevention	Plan	or	Erosion	and	Sedimentation	Control	Plan.		Temporary	BMPs	could	include,	but	

are	not	limited	to:			

 Covering	 areas	 of	 temporary	 construction	 disturbance	 with	 geotextile,	 straw,	 soil,	 or	

construction	matting	prior	to	use;					

 Placing	 orange	 temporary	 fences	and	sediment‐control	measures	 to	protect	existing	wetlands	

that	are	outside	the	planned	area	of	disturbance;	

 Coordinating	with	the	local	jurisdiction	for	the	location	and	design	of	stormwater	ponds;		

 Implementing	 the	 use	 of	 berms,	 brush	 barriers,	 check	 dams,	 erosion	 control	 blankets,	 filter	

strips,	sandbag	barriers,	sediment	basins,	silt	fences,	straw‐bale	barriers,	surface	roughening,	or	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-94 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

diversion	channels	to	reduce	erosion	and	sedimentation	during	all	phases	of	construction;	

 When	practicable,	constructing	in	waterways	during	low‐flow	or	dry	periods;	

 Diverting	flowing	water	around	active	construction	areas;	

 Not	storing	fill	material	in	wetlands	or	open	water	features;	

 Not	 allowing	 staging	 equipment,	 storing	 materials,	 chemical	 use	 (e.g.,	 soil	 stabilizers,	 dust	

inhibitors,	 and	 fertilizers),	 or	 equipment	 refueling	 within	 50	 feet	 of	 wetlands	 or	 open	 water	

features;	

 Designing	any	new	or	modified	bridges	to	minimize	direct	discharge	of	stormwater	runoff	into	

wetlands;	and	

 Incorporating	measures	to	prevent	spread	or	propagation	of	invasive	species.	

Depending	on	the	extent	of	impacts	for	the	selected	alternative,	if	an	individual	permit	is	required,	

findings	and	evaluations	under	Section	404(b)(1)	Guidelines	will	be	performed	in	Tier	2.		Under	the	

Section	 404(b)(1)	 Guidelines,	 four	 requirements	 must	 be	 met	 in	 order	 for	 the	 Corps	 to	 issue	 a	

permit:			

 There	 must	 be	 no	 practicable	 alternative	 to	 the	 proposed	 discharge,	 which	 would	 have	 less	

adverse	impact	on	the	aquatic	ecosystem;		

 The	project	cannot	be	permitted	if	there	is	a	violation	of	other	laws	(e.g.,	violation	of	applicable	

state	 water	 quality	 standard	 or	 toxic	 effluent	 standard	 or	 jeopardizes	 continued	 existence	 of	

federally	listed	species	or	critical	habitats);		

 The	project	must	not	cause	a	significant	degradation	of	the	waters	of	the	U.S.;	and		

 The	 project	 must	 include	 appropriate	 and	 practicable	 steps	 to	 minimize	 potential	 adverse	

impacts	of	the	discharge	on	the	aquatic	ecosystem.	

Impacted	wetlands	and	open	water	features	will	be	mitigated	in	accordance	with	current	U.S.	Army	

Corp	 of	 Engineers	 and	 state	 jurisdictional	 mitigation	 policies.	 	 The	 U.S.	 ACE	 generally	 requires	

compensatory	 mitigation	 on	 a	 site‐specific	 basis	 for	 impacts	 to	 wetland	 functions	 and	 values.	 	 A	

detail	of	the	steps	required	for	compensatory	mitigation	planning	is	described	in	the	Final	Rule	on	

Compensatory	 Mitigation	 for	 Losses	 of	 Aquatic	 Resources,	 which	 is	 jointly	 published	 by	 the	 U.S.	

Environmental	Protection	Agency	and	the	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	(73	FR	19594).			

More	 specific	 regional	 guidance	 is	 offered	 by	 the	 U.S.	 ACE	 New	 York	 District	 and	 NYSDOT.		

According	 to	 the	 January	 2005	 Public	 Notice101	on	 wetland	 mitigation,	 the	 New	 York	 District	

requires	that	a	mitigation	planning	document	includes	the	following	elements:		

 Mitigation	justification,		

 Mitigation	goals	and	objectives,		

 Performance	standards,		

 Mitigation	site	selection,		

                                                            

101/ USACE,	New	York	District.	“Public	Notice	Announcing	the	Compensatory	Mitigation	Guidelines	and	Mitigation	Checklist	For	Review

of	Mitigation	Plans	For	the	U.S.	ACE,	New	York	District.”	January	10,	2005.	Accessed	March	2011.		Available:	

<http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/buslinks/regulat/index.php?compensatory>
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-95 

New York State Department of Transportation 

 Baseline	information,		

 Mitigation	work	plan,		

 Stream	mitigation	(if	applicable),		

 Site	protection	and	financial	assurances,		

 Monitoring	plan	and	report,	and		

 Maintenance	and	adaptive	management.			

The	NYSDOT	further	specifies	the	need	for	additional	content:		

 Need	and	benefits	of	the	project,		

 Nature	of	wetland	impacts,		

 Avoidance	and/or	minimization	efforts,		

 Wetlands	functions	and	values	replacement,		

 Water	regime	establishment,		

 Vegetation	reestablishment,		

 Constraints	and	limitations	of	the	potential	site,	and		

 Demonstration	of	compliance	with	state	and	federal	guidelines.102

The	NYSDEC	requires	mitigation	of	impacts	 to	protected	wetlands	 through	in‐kind	(acre‐for‐acre)	

replacement	or	replacement	of	wetland	 functions	and	values.		Mitigation	plans	 to	compensate	 for	

impacts	 to	NYSDEC	 protected	 wetlands	 are	 developed	 on	 a	 case‐by‐case	 basis,	 depending	 on	 the	

type	of	wetlands	that	would	be	impacted.103		A	mitigation	plan	would	be	developed	in	coordination	

with	the	U.S.	ACE	and	other	appropriate	agencies	during	a	wetland	permitting	process,	if	needed.	

Strategies	 to	 offset	impacts	 to	wetlands	would	include	 on‐site	or	 off‐site	 restoration,	 creation,	 or	

enhancement	of	wetlands	within	the	same	watershed	as	any	impacted	wetlands.		

4.10.6. Future Analysis

Tier	 2	assessments	will	 refine	 the	impact	assessment	 based	 on	advanced	 design	and	 site‐specific	

mapping	and	delineation	of	existing	mapped	and	newly	identified	wetlands.		Wetland	boundaries	

mapped	 through	 NWI	 and	 NYSDEC	 must	 be	 verified	 using	 more	 refined	 wetland	 delineation	

techniques,	 usually	including	a	 formal	 delineation	according	 to	 the	U.S.	ACE	 1987	Manual	and	its	

supplements.		A	wetland	delineation	must	 then	be	submitted	 to	 the	U.S.	ACE	and	NYSDEC	 to	gain	

verification	of	their	jurisdiction	over	wetlands	within	a	proposed	project	area.		Further	assessments	

will	include	identification	of	ecologically	significant	locations,	such	as	Montezuma	Marshes	National	

Wildlife	Refuge/Northern	Montezuma	Wildlife	Management	Area,	Albany	Pine	Bush	Preserve,	and	

other	 federally	 and	 state‐designated	 wildlife	 management	 areas.	 	 This	 assessment	 will	 include	

further	evaluation	of	avoidance,	minimization,	or	mitigation	measures	and	identification	of	design	

refinements	needed	in	these	locations.	

In	 most	 instances,	 any	 activity	 that	 proposes	 dredging,	 filling,	 or	 other	 modification	 to	 areas	

designated	as	wetlands	is	prohibited	or	would	require	a	permit	from	 federal	and	state	regulatory	

                                                            

102/ NYSDOT.	Environmental	Procedures	Manual.	Attachment	4.A.T	Wetlands	Alternatives	Analysis	and	Mitigation	Report	Format	and	

Contents.		Accessed	March	2012.		< https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental‐analysis/manuals‐and‐

guidance/epm/repository/4atattac.pdf> 103/ NYSDEC.	“Freshwater	Wetlands	Permit	Program:	Application	Procedures.”	Accessed	March	2012.	

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6277.html>
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-96 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

agencies.	 	A	 permit	 under	Section	 404	 of	 the	U.S.	 Clean	Water	Act,	administered	 by	 the	U.S.	ACE,	

would	be	necessary	to	authorize	direct	impacts	(discharge	of	dredged	or	fill	material)	to	waters	of	

the	U.S.,	including	wetlands.		Under	Section	10	of	the	U.S.	Rivers	and	Harbors	Act,	work in,	over,	or	

under	 navigable	waters	 also	 requires	 permit	authorization	 from	the	U.S.	ACE.	 	Under	 the	Section	

404/10	permit	program,	the	U.S.	ACE	issues	two	types	of	permits:		individual	and	general	permits.			

General	permits	are	issued	for	categories	of	projects	that	are	presumed	to	have	similar	effects	and	

not	more	 than	minimal	impacts	on	 the	aquatic	environment.		General	permits	can	be	issued	on	a	

nationwide	 or	 regional	 basis.	 	 Nationwide	 permits	 (NWPs)	 include	 a	 series	 of	 existing	 permits	

covering	specific	situations	with	limited	types	and	quantities	of	impacts,	which	is	less	than	1⁄2	acre	

of	non‐tidal	wetland	impacts	for	certain	categories	of	projects.		For	instance,	Nationwide	Permit	14	

for	Linear	Transportation	project	authorizes	projects	(excluding	train	stations	and	parking	lots	and	

other	non‐linear	projects)	that	do	not	exceed	1/3	acre	of	tidal	wetland	impact	and	1⁄2	acre	of	impact	

to	 jurisdictional	 non‐tidal	 wetlands.	 	 Individual	 permits	 are	 used	 for	 impacts	 exceeding	 the	

regulatory	 thresholds	 created	 for	 each	 specific	 category	 of	 NWP.	 	 Individual	 permits	 are	 more	

complicated	and	include	a	public	review	period.		 Impacts	would	require	mitigation	 that	would	be	

outlined	in	the	permit.		The	type	of	U.S.	ACE	(Nationwide	or	Individual)	permit	will	be	determined	

after	design	of	the	selected	alternative	is	further	advanced	and	impacts	are	known.	

The	NYSDEC	also	administers	permits	for	regulated	activities	that	would	affect	protected	tidal	and	

freshwater	 wetlands	 under	 the	 state’s	 Environmental	 Conservation	 Law	 Article	 24	 (freshwater	

wetlands)	and	Article	25	(tidal	wetlands).		As	part	of	the	permitting	process,	the	extent	of	protected	

wetlands	 must	 be	 delineated,	 mapped	 and	 verified	 through	 wetland	 delineation	 protocols	

established	by	the	U.S.	ACE	and	NYSDEC.		Permit	applications	must	propose	mitigation	measures	to	

offset	any	impacts	to	wetland	resources.		Program‐wide	and	area‐specific	mitigation	strategies	can	

be	developed	with	the	resource	agencies	through	the	permit	review	process.			

The	 NYSDEC	 wetland	 programmatic	 general	 permits	 include	 authorizations	 for	 transportation	

facilities	based	on	the	type	of	activities	being	performed.		These	include:	

 Wetland	Permit	96‐03	for	Utility	Line	Installation	or	Repair;	

 Permit	96‐04	for	Rehabilitation	or	Replacement	of	Existing	Transportation	Facilities;	and	

 Permit	 96‐05	 for	 Clearing,	Grubbing,	Grading,	 and	Minor	 Fills	Associated	with	Survey	 and/or	

Exploratory	Activities.		

The	applicability	of	these	general	permits	shall	be	determined,	and	a	Notice	of	Intent	from	NYSDOT	

to	 NYSDEC	 would	 be	 required	 prior	 to	 work	 conducted	 under	 these	 general	 permits.	 	 Under		

ECL	Article	24	(freshwater	wetlands),	NYSDOT	General	Permit	(GP‐0‐11‐002)	authorizes	NYSDOT	

to	conduct	the	following	activities	within	NYSDEC‐regulated	freshwater	wetlands:			

 Bank	and	channel	stabilization	for	transportation‐related	construction	activities,	

 Permanent	and	temporary	placement	of	earth	fill	when	such	fill	is	related	to	the	rehabilitation	

or	replacement	of	an	existing	transportation	facility,	

 Installation	or	repair	of	utility	lines	when	associated	with	 transportation‐related	construction	

activities,	
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

• Rehabilitation or in-kind and in-place replacement of existing transportation facilities.

4.11. Coastal Resources

4.11.1. Regulatory Context

The New York State Division of Coastal Resources, within the Department of State, implements the 

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act,104 as well as the state’s Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal 

Areas and Inland Waterways Act.105 New York is unique in that its coastal zone management 

program, mandated under federal law, includes both marine and freshwater areas including the 

Hudson River and Great Lakes regions. The defined coastal zone includes the Hudson River south 

of the Troy Dam and Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. 

Designated inland waterways are also included under the state Waterfront Revitalization program. 

Designated inland waterway are major lakes, rivers, and streams designated by the State 

Legislature as significant because of value as natural, scenic, recreational, historic, and/or economic 

resources. Any municipality adjacent to a Designated Inland Waterway is eligible for funding from 

the state for a broad range of projects through the Environmental Protection Fund Local Waterfront 

Revitalization Program. Under the state program, the municipalities can enact Local Waterfront 

Revitalization Plans, and the regulatory protections to the waterway would be implemented 

through these plans. In coastal areas, municipalities can implement LWRPs and also Harbor 

Management Plans to aid in the planning and regulation of water use activity in intensely used 

waterfront areas. Projects within designated coastal zone or communities with approved Local 

Waterfront Revitalization Programs must be consistent with coastal policies.

The state coastal program also designates for protection designated scenic areas and habitats. The 

state Coastal Atlas identifies the coastal boundary, as well as Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance 

(SASS) and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWH). SASS designation protects 

scenic landscapes through review of projects requiring federal or state actions, including direct 

actions, permits, or funding. Similarly, projects affecting SCFWH must address consistency with 

applicable coastal policies in the federal/state consistency review process.

The protections for coastal areas in New York State include federal protections for coastal barriers. 

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act106 established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System to promote more appropriate use and conservation of coastal barriers along the Atlantic, 

Gulf, and Great Lakes coastlines. "Coastal barriers" are defined as bay barriers, barrier islands, and 

other geological features composed of sediment that protect landward aquatic habitats from direct 

wind and waves. 

The state legislature has also designated for protection Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas that include 

NYSDEC-designated/mapped areas along the shorelines of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, the Atlantic 

Ocean and Long Island Sound107. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

(NYSDEC) created the Coastal Erosion Control Permit Program to make sure that construction and 

104/ U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) as amended through Public Law No. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. 105/ NYS Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways, Article 42: (910-923), s. 910 et seq. 106/ U.S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, Public Law 106-67 (16 U.S.C. 3501-3510), 1982. 107/ Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Article 34, ECL, and Coastal Erosion Management Regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 505.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-97

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

other activities on specified coastal hazard areas meet the standards for permit issuance.

Federal and state protections and designations for the Hudson River Estuary are also provided 

under federal and state law. The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve was 

established as part of the National Estuary Research Reserve System in 1982. The National 

Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was created by the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461, to augment the Federal Coastal Zone Management 

(CZM) Program. The reserve system is a network of protected areas established to promote 

informed management of the Nation’s estuaries and coastal habitats. The reserve system currently 

consists of 27 reserves in 22 states and territories, protecting over one million acres of estuarine 

lands and waters. The Hudson River Estuary Management Act, enacted by the New York State 

Legislature (Environmental Conservation Law, Section 11-0306) established the state program, the 

Hudson River Estuary Management Program. 

4.11.2. Methodology

The available GIS mapping delineating the state coastal boundary, Scenic Areas of Statewide 

Significance, and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats were obtained for study areas within 

1⁄2 mile of the corridor centerline for all alternatives, and information available from the New York 

State Division of Coastal Resources website was consulted on these protected SASSs108 and 

SCFWHs109. The lists from the NYS Division of Coastal Resources website of coastal waterways and 

designated inland waterways 110 and municipalities that have enacted Local Waterfront 

Revitalization Plans111 were also consulted. 

Information on the locations of the federally protected John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website.112 Staff from the NYSDEC Coastal 

Erosion Control permit program were consulted to identify designated coastal erosion hazard areas 

in the study area counties. Information on the Hudson River National Estuarine Reserve was 

obtained from the NYSDEC113,114 website.

4.11.3. Existing Conditions

Coastal Zone

New York State’s coastal zone includes the Hudson River Valley, which extends 150 miles from New 

York City into upstate New York, and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region, a vast, freshwater 

108/ NYS Division of Coastal Resources, “Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance,” Accessed January 5, 2012. 

<http://nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_developed_SASS.asp> 109/ NYS Division of Coastal Resources, “Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats,” Accessed January 5, 2012. 

<http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp> 110/ “Environmental Protection Fund Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: List of Coastal Waterbodies and Designated Inland 

Waterways,” Accessed January 3, 2012. <http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/Waterways%20List_07-10.pdf> 111/ “NYS Coastal Management Program: List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs) December 2010,” 

Accessed January 4, 2012. <http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/LWRP_Status.asp> 112/ “Official Coastal Barrier Resources Systems Maps,” Accessed September 8, 2011. <http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/Maps/index.html> 113/ NYSDEC, “Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve,” Accessed January 9, 2012. 

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4915.html> 114/ NYSDEC, “Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda,” Accessed January 9, 2012. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5104.html>

Page 4-98 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

non-tidal coastal systems. Designated coastal waterways include the Hudson River, Harlem River, 

Lake Erie, and the Niagara River. 

The Empire Corridor South between New York City (Milepost 1) to Rensselaer/Albany Counties 

(Mileposts 143-144) is entirely within the coastal zone. The Great Lakes coastal zone includes 

Irondequoit Bay and Creek, a tributary to Lake Ontario, in Monroe County, which crosses the 

Empire Corridor West in East Rochester/Perinton (Milepost 363). 

The Niagara Branch crosses the coastal zone at several locations. It extends into the coastal zone 

along the Lake Erie waterfront area in Buffalo (between Mileposts QDN 2 and 4) in Erie County and 

at the Scajaquada Creek, a tributary of the Niagara River, in Buffalo (Milepost 6.3). The Niagara 

Branch crosses the coastal zone at the Erie Canal crossing at Tonawanda/North Tonawanda 

(Milepost 13.5) and extends close to the coastal zone along the Niagara River extending north to 

Milepost 17.5. The end of the Niagara Branch extends into the coastal zone at the Niagara River in 

Niagara Falls (Milepost QDN 28). 

The coastal zone and coastal resources are identical for the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas , as the 

corridors merge in these three coastal areas: Hudson River, Great Lakes/Irondequoit Bay and 

Creek, and Lake Erie/Niagara River. The communities with Local Waterfront Revitalization 

Programs are largely the same for the alternatives, with the exception of a few communities.

Coastal Barrier Resource System

The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) includes portions of the Great Lakes in Cayuga, 

Monroe, and Erie Counties. However, the designated CBRS is outside of the study area. 

Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas

The state has designated coastal erosion hazard areas in five communities in Erie County and two 

communities in Niagara County. All of these municipalities and designated coastal erosion hazard 

areas are outside of the study area.

Hudson River Estuary

Four distinct tidal wetland sites on the Hudson River Estuary were designated the Hudson River 

National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1982, as field laboratories for estuarine research, 

stewardship and education. The reserve is operated as a partnership between New York State and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and relates to federally-designated 

and state-protected sites along 100 miles of the estuary. The reserve is a federal-state partnership 

program that relates to four federally-designated and state-protected sites along 100 miles of 

Hudson River Estuary: Piermont Marsh and Iona Island (both located west of the Hudson River), 

Tivoli Bays, and Stockport Flats.

Inland Designated Waterways

The inland designated waterways in the study area include the Mohawk River, Onondaga Lake, 

Genesee River, and Tonawanda Creek. However this designation does not in itself confer protection 

to the waterway unless the communities have enacted Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-99

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans

Under the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), communities along the designated 

coastal waterbodies and these inland designated waterways can enact Local Waterfront 

Revitalization Plans. Along the Empire Corridor South, there are 19 communities within a half mile 

of the corridor centerline on the east side of the Hudson River that are covered by LWRPs. There 

are three communities on the west side of the Hudson River that fall within a half mile of the 

Empire Corridor South corridor centerline that have enacted LWRPs. There are 8 communities 

within a half mile of the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas between Albany Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch corridor centerline that have enacted LWRPs. In addition to the eight 

individual communities with LWRP’s in the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch section, there 

are two regional LWRP’s that involve multiple communities within the watershed. This includes 

the Mohawk River Waterfront revitalization Plan for Schenectady County and the Mid-Montgomery 

County LWRP, which includes several other municipalities along the Mohawk River. Exhibit 4-18

lists by county those communities that have enacted Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans. With 

the exception of Amsterdam and North Greenbush, all the communities listed as having LWRPs are 

within a half mile of the corridor centerline for both the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas. The City 

of Amsterdam and the Town of North Greenbush are within a half mile of the 90/110 Study Area 

only; not the 125 Study Area.

Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance

The coastal zone along the Empire Corridor South also includes six state-designated Scenic Areas of 

Statewide Significance. The Hudson River Valley coastal region includes six areas in Columbia, 

Greene, Dutchess and Ulster Counties, which were designated in 1993 as Scenic Areas of Statewide 

Significance. The areas in both the Hudson Valley and East End encompass unique, highly scenic 

landscapes accessible to the public and recognized for their outstanding quality. 

The six SASSs in the study area are described below:

• The Hudson Highlands Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) encompasses a 20-mile

stretch of the Hudson River and its shorelands and varies in width from approximately 1 to 6

miles. The SASS includes the east and west shorelands of the river, extending from Newburgh

on the north to Peekskill on the south. The Hudson River has carved a spectacular gorge

through the Hudson Highlands. The present shoreline configuration includes steep cliffs, bluffs,

and gently sloping banks. Railroads hug the shoreline of the Hudson River and roads follow the

hillside contours and inland valleys. There are two military sites within the SASS, the

undeveloped parts of the Camp Smith Military Reservation and the West Point Military

Academy, both with extensive areas of open space. The present-day land use pattern of the

Hudson Highlands is dominated by state parkland, preserving much of the open space of the

SASS.

• The Estates District SASS is located approximately 12 miles north of the Hudson Highlands

SASS and 3 miles south of the Catskill-Olana SASS. The SASS extends approximately 27 miles to

south of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Home National Historic Site. As its name implies, the Estates

District SASS is dominated by over twenty major and numerous minor historic estates and the

Hudson River toward which they are oriented. The landform consists of rolling topography

behind steep bluffs, which drop 150 feet to the Hudson River. The shoreline of the Hudson is

characterized by coves, marshes and scattered islands along the eastern shore. When seen from

Page 4-100 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-18—Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs in the Study Area (for 90/110 and 125 

Study Areas unless otherwise noted) 

Coastal Management 

Program Regions County LWRP Municipalities

Distance from rail 

centerline (within 

1/2 mile)

Comments

New York City New York New York City (C)

Hudson River

Westchester Dobbs Ferry (V)

Westchester Sleepy Hollow (V)

Westchester Ossining (V)

Westchester Croton-on-Hudson (V)

Westchester Peekskill (C)

Rockland Stony Point (T) 1,100 feet Opposite side of river; 

northern end

Orange Newburgh (C) 1,700 feet Opposite side of river

Dutchess Beacon (C)

Dutchess Poughkeepsie )T)

Dutchess Rhinebeck (T)

Dutchess Red Hook (T)

Dutchess Tivoli (V) within the Town of 

Redhook

Ulster Lloyd (T) 900 feet Opposite side of river

Ulster Esopus (T) 1,000 feet Opposite side of river

Ulster Kingston (C) 1,400 feet Opposite side of river

Ulster Saugerties (V) 1,000 feet Opposite side of river

Greene Athens (C) 400 feet Opposite side of river

Rensselaer Schodack (T)

Rensselaer Castleton (V) within Town of 

Schodack - same LWRP

Rensselaer Rensselaer (C)

Rensselaer *North Greenbush (T) 2,500 feet East of Albany

Albany Albany (C)

Inland Waterways

Schenectady

Glenville(T); Niskayuna(T); 

Rotterdam(T); Scotia(V); 

Schenectady(C)

Montgomery *Amsterdam (C)

Montgomery Glen(T); Fultonville(V); 

Mohawk(T0; Fonda(V)

Herkimer Little Falls (C)

Monroe Pittsford (T)

Western Lake Ontario 

Niagara R. & Lake Erie

Monroe Penfield (T)

Monroe Rochester (C)

Erie Tonawanda (C)

Niagara North Tonawanda (C)

C = City; T = Town; V = Village; */ Communities within 1/2 mile of the 90/110 Study Area only

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment

and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1⁄2 mile of the corridor centerline. 

Source: NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources. “New York State Coastal Management Program,” Accessed January 11, 2012. 

<http://nyswaterfronts.com/LWRP_Status.asp>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-101

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

a distance, however, the east bank shoreline appears unbroken because railroad causeways 

bridge the natural indentations and transform the east bank into a single fluid line.

• The Esopus/Lloyd SASS encompasses a 17-mile stretch of the Hudson River and its western 

shorelands and varies significantly in width from 0.75 to 2 miles. The SASS extends from its 

northern boundary, which runs from south of the hamlet of Port Ewen, extending through 

Poughkeepsie to its southern boundary in the hamlet of Milton. The SASS includes the Hudson 

River from the mean high tide line on the eastern shore, for much of its length sharing a 

common boundary with the Estates District SASS on the eastern shorelands of the Hudson 

River. The SASS is dominated by a long stretch of bluffs along the Hudson River shorelands. 

• The Ulster North SASS encompasses a 10-mile stretch of the Hudson River and its western 

shorelands and varies from 1.25 miles to 2.5 miles in width. The SASS extends from its 

northern boundary at the Ulster/Greene County line to its southern boundary at Ulster Landing 

Park. The SASS includes the Hudson River from the mean high tide line on the eastern shore for 

all of its length, sharing a common boundary with the Estates District SASS on the eastern 

shorelands of the Hudson River. It is characterized by a gently rolling upland landscape set 

above a steep bluff reaching elevations of 150 feet. 

• The Catskill-Olana Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) consists of a portion of the 

Hudson River and its shorelands, an area approximately 51⁄2 miles long and three miles wide. 

Its northern boundary incorporates Catskill, Rogers Island, and Greenport and extends south to 

Germantown. The area is known as the home of two major artists of the Hudson River School of 

Painting, Thomas Cole and Frederic Church. Thomas Cole, considered the father of the Hudson 

River School, America's first landscape painting movement, established his home and studio in 

Catskill. Frederic Church was Thomas Cole's only student. The promontory on the east shore is 

where Church constructed his estate, Olana. Catskill-Olana SASS exhibits an unusual variety of 

landforms including floodplains and steep ravines that rise 250 feet above; forested bluffs along 

the Hudson River; plateaus and rolling farmland south of Catskill Village and the promontory of 

Church's Hill. A variety of water features is present, the Hudson River and its coves, channels 

and inlets being the most prominent. 

• The Columbia-Greene North Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) is located 

roughly 3 miles north of the Catskill-Olana SASS. This SASS extends about 15 miles along the 

Hudson River from the vicinity of Schodack Landing in southern Rensselaer County and 

Coeymans hamlet in southern Albany County southward to Greenport, just north of the City of 

Hudson in Columbia. The scenic area's east and west boundaries generally follow the state 

coastal boundary with some variations. The SASS constitutes a predominantly rural area of low 

bluffs and ravines, flanked on the west shore by narrow alluvial plains and on the east shore, by 

a broader plateau. It is a quiet, pastoral area of working farms and river landings, which has 

changed little since the 19th century.

Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats

The coastal zone along the study area includes 31 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats 

(SCFWH) as shown in Exhibit 4-19. These SCFWH areas include areas within the Hudson River 

National Estuarine Reserve (Tivoli Bays, Iona Islands), a National Natural Landmark (Iona Islands 

on the west side of the Hudson River), and other federal and state parklands. Of these areas, all but 

three are located along the Hudson River. 

Page 4-102 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The Tivoli Bays is designated by NYSDEC as a Natural Heritage Area in New York State. The Tivoli 

Bays is also included in the Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District designated under 

Article 49 of the Environmental Conservation Law.

4.11.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe impacts to coastal resources, including the coastal zone, Significant 

Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, and Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance. The protections to 

Inland Designated Waterways are implemented through Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans in 

the communities shown in Exhibit 4-18, so work proposed in these communities will need to be 

consistent with the local plans. 

Coastal impacts are addressed for the Base Alternative and Alternatives 90A, 90B, 110, and 125, 

and the greatest potential for impacts is centered on the Hudson River. This preliminary 

assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and will be further refined in Tier 2 as the 

project development process is further advanced, and efforts to avoid farmland encroachments will 

be made as design is advanced. 

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. 

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative includes signal and grade crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. This area is situated entirely within the coastal boundary for the Hudson River. There are 

a number of Significant Fish and Coastal Wildlife Habitats along this section. This area closely 

borders (within 300 feet of), to the west, the Poughkeepsie Deepwater Habitat SCFWH between 

MPs 76 and 79 and extends east inland of the Kingston Deepwater Habitat SCFWH, as close as 

300 feet, between MPs 82 and 89. This section extends through the Vanderburgh Cove and 

Shallows SCFWH between MPs 85 and 87, where the railroad is located on a causeway over 

embayments along the Hudson River. Between MPs 95.3 and 98.3, the railroad extends through the 

North and South Tivoli Bays SCFWH, which is one of four tidal wetland sites federally designated 

and state-protected as part of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, a federalstate partnership program that provides field laboratories for estuarine research, stewardship and 

education. Between MPs 99 and 100, the railroad closely borders on the Esopus Estuary SCFWH, 

extending within 100 feet over a distance of 700 feet. Between MPs 100.5 to 105.3, the railroad 

adjoins the eastern side of the Germantown-Clermont Flats SCFWH. At MP 108, the railroad 

closely borders the Roeliff Jansen Kill SCFWH to the east. Between MPs 110.25 and 113, the 

railroad extends along the east side of the Rogers Island SCFWH. Between MPs 115 and 122, the 

railroad extends through or closely borders the Stockport Creek and Flats SCFWH, which is part 

of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve. Between MPs 125.5 and 127, the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-103

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Exhibit 4-19—Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats within 1/2 Mile

County Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat SCFWH 

Acreage

Significance 

Value

New York, Bronx, Westchester Lower Hudson Reach 4,001 130

Westchester Croton River and Bay 662 25

Westchester, Rockland Haverstraw Bay 1,093 166

Rockland Iona Island Marsh 12 71

Westchester, Rockland, Orange, 

Putnam Hudson River Mile 44-56 2,997 148

Putnam Constitution Marsh 425 69

Dutchess

Fishkill Creek 178 80

North and South Tivoli Bays 1,202 162

Vanderburg Cove and Shallows 517 20

Wappinger Creek 163 54

Dutchess, Ulster

Poughkeepsie Deepwater Habitat 2,384 110

Esopus Estuary 378 98

Kingston Deep Water Habitat 834 110

The Flats 258 118

Ulster Rondout Creek 6 70

Columbia

Germantown - Clermont Flats 989 121

Mill Creek Wetlands 280 53

Roeliff Jansen Kill 31 46

Rogers Island 653 104

Stockport Creek and Flats 2,000 115

Greene

Catskill Creek 18 54

Coxsackie Creek 29 26

Coxsackie Island Backwater 14 35

Ramshorn Marsh 186 133

Vosburg Swamp and Middle Ground Flats 526 57

Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer Schodack and Houghtaling Islands and 

Schodack Creek 1,826 77

Rensselaer Papscane Marsh and Creek 711 48

Albany Shad and Schermerhorn Islands 379 22

Monroe Irondequoit Bay and Creek 18 80

Erie Times Beach Diked Disposal Site 26 30

Niagara Lower Niagara River Rapids 2 73

Source: NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources. “Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat,” Accessed January 15, 2012. 

<http://nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp>

railroad extends through the Mill Creek Wetlands SCFWH. Between MPs 127 and 133.3, the 

railroad adjoins the east side of the Schodack and Houghtaling Islands and Schodack Creek 

SCFWH. The railroad passes through or adjacent to Pascane Marsh and Creek SCFWH between 

MPs 135.2 and 139.3. The signal and grade crossing improvements are anticipated to be conducted 

within the right-of-way, and impacts to these SCFWHs are not anticipated.

Page 4-104 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The signal and grade crossing improvements extend through the Estates District SASS, which 

extends to the mean high tide line on the eastern shore of the Hudson River between MPs 76.5 and 

103.5. The district borders the adjoining Esopus-Lloyd SASS (MPs 70 to 87.5) and Ulster-North 

SASS (MPs 95 to 103.5) to the west and including the river. Between MPs 115.3 and 131.5, the 

railroad extends through the Columbia-Green North SASS. The railroad passes through the 

Catskill-Olana SASS between MPs 87 and 112. The work within or adjoining these SASSs will not 

involve substantial impacts outside of the right-of-way and will not result in appreciable changes in 

visual quality, and no impacts to the scenic qualities of the SASSs are anticipated. 

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at 

Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (MPs 141 to 143), which is located largely along the 

coastal boundary. Since this work will be confined to the right-of-way and will not involve impacts 

to SCFWHs or SASSs, no coastal impacts are anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations, as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station. Only a portion of this 

area (between MPs 142 and 143.5) is situated within or along the coastal boundary, and no impacts 

to SCFWHs or SASSs will occur. Therefore, this work, which will be confined to the right-of-way, 

will not have coastal impacts. 

The proposed Syracuse track configuration and signal improvements and Rochester Station track 

and platform improvements (MPs 368 to 373) are located outside of the coastal zone. 

Proposed improvements for the new Niagara Falls Intermodal Transportation Center extend within 

the coastal zone. However, the work will be conducted within the right-of-way and will not be 

located within SCFWHs or SASSs and is not anticipated to involve coastal impacts. 

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described.

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A includes construction of four miles of second track through urbanized areas of 

Manhattan (MPs 9 to 13). The Lower Hudson Reach SCFWH adjoins the railroad where it closely 

borders the Hudson River between MPs 1 to 17, but the second track would be located within the 

right-of-way, and this work is not anticipated to involve coastal impacts. Alternative 90A also 

includes 1.4 miles of new track (MPs 23.8 to 25.2), extending under the Tappan Zee Bridge, for the 

Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking. This work would not affect SCFWHs or SASSs and would be 

within the right-of-way, and is not anticipated to involve coastal impacts. 

With Alternative 90A, signal improvements proposed along 43 miles (MPs 32.8 and 75.8) extend 

through urban areas (Westchester and Dutchess Counties). Along this section, 10 miles of new 

third track (MPs 53 to 63) and improvements at the Poughkeepsie Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-105

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

75.8) are also proposed in Dutchess County. The Croton River and Bay SCFWH adjoins or crosses 

the railroad between MPs 31 to 33.5, and the Haverstraw Bay SCFWH adjoins the railroad 

between MPs 34 and 37. The railroad extends adjacent to or through the Hudson River Mile 44 to 

56 SCFWH between MPs 42.5 and 54.5. The railroad adjoins the Constitution Marsh SCFWH, on 

the west, between MPs 50.5 to 52.3. The railroad extends through or adjoins the Fishkill Creek 

SCFWH between MPs 57.3 and 57.7. The railroad adjoins or extends through the Wappinger 

Creek SCFWH between MPs 63.8 and 65. The Poughkeepsie Deepwater Habitat extends within 

200 feet west of the railroad between MPs 67.5 and 79.4. New third track 53 to 53.2 and from 53.5 

to 54.5 will adjoin the east side of the Hudson River Mile 44-56 SCFWH, but since work would be 

contained within the right-of-way, impacts to this area are not anticipated. The remaining SCFWHs 

would not be affected by Alternative 90A improvements, which would be confined to the right-ofway.

The railroad extends through the Vanderburg Cove and Shallows SCFWH between MPs 85 and 

87. However, no work is proposed in this area, the Rhinecliff Station improvements are located two 

miles to the north (MP 89.2). Between MPs 95.3 and 98.3, the railroad extends through the North 

and South Tivoli Bays SCFWH, which is one of four tidal wetland sites federally designated and 

state-protected as part of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve. Alternative 

90A does not involve work at these locations, so no impacts would occur at these SCFWHs. 

Between MPs 99 and 100, the railroad closely borders on the Esopus Estuary SCFWH, extending 

within 100 feet over a distance of 700 feet. This is in the vicinity of the proposed crossover (CP99 

at MPs 98.4 to 98.94) but this work would not extend outside of the right-of-way and is not 

anticipated to affect the Esopus Estuary SCFWH. 

Rock slope stabilization is proposed at 10 locations between MPs 105.3 to 106 (5 locations), MP 

119.5 (one location), and MPs 128.1-130 (4 locations). Hudson Station improvements are proposed 

at MPs 113.5 to 115. These improvements will not affect SCFWHs.

Between MPs 100.5 to 105.3, the railroad adjoins the eastern side of the Germantown-Clermont 

Flats SCFWH, and rock slope stabilization proposed at five locations from MPs 105.3 to 106 would 

occur within the right-of-way and is not anticipated to impact coastal impacts. At MP 108, the 

railroad closely borders the Roeliff Jansen Kill SCFWH to the east, and work for Alternative 90A is 

not anticipated at this location. 

The railroad extends through the Hudson Highlands SASS between MPs 40.5 to 57.8. The signal 

improvements and addition of a third track (between MPs 53 and 58) would not affect the visual 

quality of this SASS.

This area extends through the Estates District SASS, which extends to the mean high tide line on 

the eastern shore of the Hudson River between MPs 76.5 and 103.5. The district borders the 

adjoining Esopus-Lloyd SASS (MPs 70 to 87.5) and Ulster-North SASS (MPs 95 to 103.5) to the 

west and including the river. The railroad passes through the Catskill-Olana SASS between MPs 

87 and 112. Improvements at the Poughkeepsie Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 75.8) and 

Rhinecliff Station (MP 89.2), and Hudson Line Reliability Improvements at CPs 82 and 99 (MPs 82 

and 99) would extend within the southern SASSs, but should not change the visual quality of these 

areas. 

Between MPs 115.3 and 131.5, the railroad extends through the Columbia-Green North SASS. 

Rock slope stabilization proposed at MP 119.5 (one location) and MPs 128.1 to 130 (4 locations) 

would extend within this SASS, but would not change the scenic quality of the area. 

Page 4-106 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

No work is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the Mill Creek Wetlands SCFWH (MPs 125.5 to 

127). 

A new crossover, CP 136, is proposed at MP 136, and this work would extend within the Papscane 

Marsh and Creek SCFWH (MPs 135 to 139.3), but is not anticipated to impact the SCFWH. 

The replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (MPs 143.2 to 144) will occur within the coastal 

zone, but will not affect SCFWHs or SASSs. The disturbance to the coastal zone will be temporary in 

nature and represents a replacement of an existing structure.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Other improvement proposed with Alternative 90A include approximately 10 miles of third track 

between MPs 169 and 178.5; Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this segment; 

and upgrades to interlockings and automatic block signals at three control points (CP 175, CP 239, 

and CP 248). Alternative 90A also includes Syracuse Station track improvements (MPs 290 to 294), 

third track improvements along 11 miles (MPs 373 to 382) west of the station, the addition of a 

third track along 11 miles located largely west of the urban area around Rochester and extending 

into Genesee County, and Buffalo-Depew Station improvements. These Alternative 90A 

improvements are located outside of the coastal zone.

The proposed double track along the Niagara Branch (at MP QDN17) and the new Niagara Falls 

Intermodal Facility (at MP QDN28) intersect the coastal boundary along the Niagara River. These 

improvements would be located within the right-of-way and would not involve substantial coastal 

impacts. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed, and coastal zone impacts are not anticipated to occur as this work is expected to be 

confined to the right-of-way.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 90A improvements include the Livingston Avenue Bridge replacement and the double 

track along the Niagara Branch and new Niagara Falls Intermodal Facility, which will both extend 

within the coastal zone. These impacts are anticipated to be temporary in nature.

Improvements for Alternative 90B are located outside of the coastal zone, with the exception of two 

track improvements along the Irondequoit Creek and the Niagara River. Track improvements for 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-107

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

relocated freight track would extend over the Irondequoit Creek at MP 362.92. The coastal zone 

at this crossing includes the Irondequoit Bay and Creek SCFWH, and modification or replacement 

would be required to the existing bridge structure. Work to modify or construct a new bridge over 

the waterway to accommodate the additional track would be temporary in nature, and since the 

bridge would span the waterway, no impacts to the coastal zone or coastal habitat area are 

anticipated. 

The proposed double track along the Niagara Branch (at MPs QDN2 to QDN7) intersects the coastal 

boundary along the Niagara River. These improvements would be located within the right-of-way 

and would not involve substantial coastal impacts. 

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed, and coastal zone impacts are not anticipated to occur as this work is expected to be 

confined to the right-of-way.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, impacts to the coastal zone would be the same as for Alternative 90B. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 also would 

include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the Empire Corridor over two 

15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, respectively. Alternative 125 

would include Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, are proposed for Alternative 125 

along the majority of Empire Corridor South, and coastal zone impacts are not anticipated to occur 

as this work is expected to be confined to the right-of-way. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River at a new bridge to be constructed within the coastal zone. This will not affect SCFWHs or 

SASSs, but would involve work within the coastal waterway for a new bridge.

Page 4-108 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

This route rejoins the Empire Corridor through Syracuse and Rochester, including the section of 

track east of Rochester where the Empire Corridor West crosses the coastal zone at Irondequoit 

Creek (MP 362.92). Impacts to this coastal area would be the same as for Alternatives 90B and 

110.

Alternative 125 also includes improvements proposed under Alternative 90A, which include double 

track along the Niagara Branch and a new Niagara Falls Intermodal Facility that will extend within 

the coastal zone along the Niagara River. 

4.11.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

In Tier 2, early consultation will be performed with NYSDOS and the affected municipalities to 

review the proposed action and its consistency with state coastal policies. A determination that the 

program is consistent with coastal policies enacted under the Federal Coastal Zone Management 

Act and the New York State Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Law 

will be made as part of Tier 2. The proposed action will need to be consistent with state coastal 

policies and with approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans (LWRPs) in affected 

municipalities. If a municipality identifies a conflict between the proposed action and its LWRP, 

consultation will be performed with the municipality to resolve the issue. 

In Tier 2, Coastal Special Management Areas (characterized for the entire study area in Section

4.11.3, “Existing Conditions”) will be reviewed within the defined program area to identify the 

following:

• Regional Coastal Management Programs area, 

• Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs area, 

• Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, 

• Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, 

• Harbor Management Plans. 

Measures to avoid or minimize impacts on coastal resources and Coastal Special Management Areas 

will be identified in Tier 2. 

Coastal consistency reviews will be performed to determine how the program complies with 

federal, state, regional, and local coastal policies, and appropriate mitigation measures will be 

identified based on these reviews. Mitigation strategies may include permanent measures, such as 

providing permanent compensation for visual or coastal impacts or temporary construction 

measures, such as time of year fisheries restrictions for silt-producing work within coastal waters 

or restrictions to avoid navigational impacts. Mitigation measures during construction operations 

include minimizing damage by debris, sedimentation, and other foreign materials being carried into 

the coastal waters. Areas of exposed soil would be minimized, and erosion and sediment control 

items should be implemented as part of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and Erosion and 

Sediment Control Plans. Consultation with the NYSDOS and entities with LWRP or Harbor 

Management Plans will be performed regarding mitigation measures proposed.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-109

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.11.6. Future Analysis

As discussed above, Tier 2 will identify potential impacts to Coastal Special Management Areas and 

will include early consultation with NYSDOT and municipalities to identify consistency with coastal 

policies and issues of concern. In order to determine state consistency with coastal policies, a State 

Coastal Assessment Form under Part 600 of Title 19 of the NYCRR will be completed and submitted 

to NYSDOS to assist in making a determination of significance under SEQR.

Federal consistency review will involve submitting Federal Aid Notification letter to NYSDOS and 

completing the Federal Consistency Assessment Form, including documenting consistency with 

state coastal policies and LWRPs (submitting copies of correspondence with/from the LWRP). For 

the purposes of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting, if the program involves a Nationwide 

Permit, the consistency with coastal policies of the Nationwide Permit will need to be reviewed. If 

an individual U.S. ACE or USCG permit is required, a Federal Consistency Assessment Form would 

be submitted, along with a completed joint U.S. ACE/NYSDEC Permit Application and/or USCG 

Bridge Permit application and NEPA documentation, and all information and data necessary to 

assess the effects of the proposed activity on and its consistency with the Coastal Management 

Program.

Documentation will also be submitted to potentially affected local municipalities with LWRPs 

addressing consistency with the LWRPs.

4.12. Aquifers

4.12.1. Regulatory Context

Federal protection of critical groundwater supplies is provided by the sole source aquifer program. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines a sole source aquifer as an 

aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the 

aquifer. These areas may have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally 

and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water. There are two 

types of "sole source aquifers" (SSAs) designated sole or principal source aquifers.115

New York State also has a sole source aquifer protection program.116 The purpose and goals of this 

program are to provide funds for the implementation of groundwater protection plans and protect 

water quality in designated “special groundwater protection areas.” The program establishes a 

process for nominating and designating special groundwater protection areas within federally 

designated sole source aquifer areas contained within counties having a population of one million 

or more people. 

In order to enhance protection of aquifers that are most productive and most vulnerable, the New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), in cooperation with the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS), has mapped eighteen primary aquifers throughout the state. 

Primary aquifers are defined as "highly productive aquifers presently utilized as sources of water 

115/ U.S. EPA Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program (under 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1424(e) and 1986 amendments to 

the Act)

116/ New York Environmental Conservation - Article 55 Sole Source Aquifer Protection

Page 4-110 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

supply by major municipal water supply systems." The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) believes that all of the primary aquifers in New York State 

would qualify for designation as federally protected sole source aquifers.117

Principal aquifers are "aquifers known to be highly productive or whose geology suggests abundant 

potential water supply, but that are not intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal 

systems at the present time."118 

4.12.2. Methodology

Groundwater resources for study areas within 300 feet of the corridor centerline for all alternatives 

were mapped using available GIS information. The New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC), in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), has 

mapped primary aquifers (1:24,000 scale) and is in the process of identifying principal aquifers, or 

the remainder of the unconsolidated aquifers in New York that are generally capable of providing 

10 to 100 or more gallons per minute at 1:24,000 scale. 

Due to the large number of aquifers in New York State, the federal-state cooperative mapping 

program must continue for some time before all principal aquifers have been mapped. In the 

meantime, for those areas not mapped the NYSDEC Division of Water refers to a series of USGS 

maps titled "Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New York", to show potential areas of principal 

aquifers (1:250,000 scale). Areas mapped as "Unconfined Aquifer 10 to 100 gallons per minute" or 

"Unconfined Aquifer more than 100 gallons per minute" are generally considered to be principal 

aquifers unless contradictory site specific information is made available to the NYSDEC.

3

GIS information obtained includes U.S. EPA sole source aquifers, NYSDEC/USGS primary aquifers 

(1:24,000 scale), and NYSDEC/USGS unconsolidated aquifers (at 1:250,000 scale) to identify and 

map principal aquifers within the 300-foot buffer. 

4.12.3. Existing Conditions

The Empire Corridor 90/110 Study Area passes over 2.03 square miles of one SSA: the 

Schenectady-Niskayuna Aquifer within the 600-foot wide study area. It is approximately 20 miles 

long and underlies approximately 30 square miles in the lower and easternmost part of the 

Mohawk River Basin, with a small overlap into the Lower Hudson River Basin. The 125 Study Area 

also passes over the same SSA; however, it only passes over 0.06 square mile of it.

Under the state sole source aquifer program, a process for nominating and designating special 

groundwater protection areas within sole source aquifers has been established. Nine special 

groundwater protection areas, all outside the study area counties, have been designated. 

The state has identified eighteen primary aquifers across the state. The 90/110 Study Area passes 

over a combined 4.75 square miles of five of these primary aquifers: the Croton-Ossining, 

Schenectady, Baldwinsville, Irondognessee and Batvia aquifers. The 125 Study Area passes over a 

117/ NYSDEC, Sole Source Aquifers, Accessed, October, 20, 2011 <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36151.html> 118/ NYSDEC, Primary and Principal Aquifers, Accessed April 20, 2011 <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36119.html>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-111

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

combined 2.67 square miles of three of these primary aquifers: the Croton-Ossining, Baldwinsville 

and Irondognessee. Principal aquifers also underlie both study areas. There are approximately 

15.32 square miles of principal aquifers underlying the 90/110 Study Area and 7.03 square miles 

underlying the 125 Study Area.

Exhibit 4-20 presents the aquifer areas by county, and Appendix G.10 describes the aquifers in each 

county. 

4.12.4. Environmental Consequences

This section below describes anticipated direct and indirect impacts of program alternatives on 

groundwater resources. The proposed addition of third and fourth tracks, particularly in areas 

where the railbed is already in place would have minimal or no direct impacts on the underlying 

aquifers or the quantity of groundwater recharge. The addition of ballast for the new tracks would 

be considered pervious to infiltrating stormwaters. There may be a slightly increased potential for 

contaminants reaching the underlying aquifer with increased train traffic on the new tracks, 

however this would be considered to be a minimal effect. Any proposed structures that would 

require substantial excavations would have a higher potential to directly impact existing 

groundwater resources. These actions may include construction of new stations, extension of 

platforms, bridge construction, and other similar activities. 

In general, actions that would constitute impacts on groundwater would include deep excavations 

that may intersect the groundwater table and/or any increase in impervious surfaces (construction 

of foundations, placement of compacted fill or impervious pavement), which could reduce 

infiltration rates of recharge efficiency. Actions that may result in the release of contaminants as a 

result of construction or operation may also affect the underlying aquifers and potentially drinking 

water supplies.

This preliminary assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and is designed to identify areas where 

there would be potential impacts, as described above, to Sole Source Aquifers (SSAs), Primary, and 

Principal Aquifers as a result of the proposed improvements. Specific details on impacts and 

general mitigation plans will be included as the project development process is further advanced in 

the Tier 2 analysis.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. 

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative will include signal and grade-crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. In New York and Bronx Counties, the rail alignment study area will not pass over any U.S. 

EPA regulated SSAs or any primary or principal aquifers of New York State. In Westchester County, 

Page 4-112 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-20—Federal Sole Source and State Primary/Principal Aquifers in the Study Area

County

Aquifer Area within 600-foot wide Study Area (Square Miles)

Sole-Source 

(Schenectady-Niskayuna)

Primary Aquifers

(Aquifer Name) Principal Aquifers

90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

90/110 

Study Area

125

Study Area

New York - - - - - -

Bronx - - - - - -

Westchester - -

0.26

(CrotonOssining)

0.26

(CrotonOssining)0.03 0.03

Putnam - - - - 0.09 0.09

Dutchess - - - - 0.03 0.03

Columbia - - - - 0.41 0.41

Rensselaer - - - - 0.80 0.83

Albany 0.43 0.06 - - 0.93 1.23

Schenectady 1.60 -

1.29 

(Schenectady)- 0.30 0.59

Schoharie - - - - - 0.33

Montgomery - - - - 4.47 0.41

Herkimer - - - - 2.70 0.73

Oneida - - - - 1.83 0.47

Madison - - - - - 0.10

Onondaga - -

1.95 

(Baldwinsville)

1.52 

(Baldwinsville)0.20 0.02

Cayuga - - - - 0.71 0.23

Wayne - - -

0.02 

(Irondongenessee)2.41 0.84

Monroe - -

0.88 

(Irondongenessee)

0.87 

(Irondongenessee)0.37 0.29

Genesee - - 0.37 

(Batvia) - - 0.12

Erie - - - - 0.04 0.28

Niagara - - - - - -

TOTAL 2.03 0.06 4.75 2.67 15.32 7.03

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-

mile long Empire Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of 

portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as 

being within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Sources: 1) U.S. EPA, Sole_Source_Aquifers.shp, 2011; 2) NYSDEC, primary_aquifers.shp, 2011; 3) NYSDEC, 

Unconsolidated Aquifers at 1:250,000, 2011; 4) New York State Division of Water, Water Wells.shp, 2011

the rail alignment study area will cross over both primary and principal aquifers of New York State; 

however, since the proposed improvements will not include construction or excavation activities in 

these areas, direct and indirect impacts to nearby aquifers will not be anticipated. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-113

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

The section of track with proposed signal and grade-crossing improvements will extend through 

the remaining counties in the Empire Corridor South (Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia and Rensselaer). 

These improvements will not occur over U.S. EPA regulated SSAs or New York State Primary 

aquifers; however, small segments of principal aquifers will be present in all four counties. 

Proposed improvements will include replacing old signal poles with underground cable between 

Poughkeepsie and Rensselaer Station and installing grade crossing active warning devices, and 

roadway approach and/or pedestrian improvements to accommodate improved passenger rail 

operations between Poughkeepsie and Albany. Improvements will primarily occur within the 

existing right-of-way, and will not likely include a change to the existing water quality and 

impervious surfaces; therefore, there will be minimal direct and/or indirect impacts to the nearby 

principal aquifers.

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at 

Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (MPs 141 to 143). New York State principal aquifers 

associated with the Hudson River will underlie portions of this proposed improvement area. 

Adding rail ties and even ballast for additional track will involve minimal impacts to underlying 

aquifers. Although, the station platform extension in this area will have the potential to increase 

impervious surfaces, this will have a minimal impact on aquifer recharge, given the size of the 

contributing watershed.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations (MPs 143 to 160), as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station 

(MP159). The proposed additional track will extend over three aquifer types in Albany and 

Schenectady Counties, including: 

• The principal aquifers in the majority of Albany County and southern portion of Schenectady 

County, 

• The Schenectady-Niskayuna SSA from approximately MP 151 until roughly the Schenectady 

County boundary, and 

• The Schenectady Primary Aquifer from approximately MP 158 until roughly the Schenectady 

County boundary.

Adding rail ties and even ballast will involve minimal impacts to underlying aquifers; therefore, the 

proposed improvements will have minimal direct and/or indirect impacts to principal aquifers, the 

Schenectady-Niskayuna SSA, and the Schenectady Primary Aquifer.

Most of the proposed track configuration and signal improvements in and around the City of 

Syracuse (MPs 278 to 291) will be located to the east of the Baldwinsville Primary Aquifer (located 

in Onondaga County), with the exception of the milepost MP 291, where the alignment will cross 

the aquifer. Work in this area will include upgrading the existing third track, add crossovers and 

reconfigure signals at Syracuse Station to reduce congestion, delays and interference between 

passenger and freight trains. Improvements will primarily occur within the existing right-of-way, 

and will likely not include a change to the existing water quality and impervious surfaces; therefore, 

the proposed improvements will have minimal direct and/or indirect impacts to the Baldwinsville 

Primary Aquifer.

Page 4-114 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The improvements in the City of Rochester at and surrounding the Rochester Station will not be 

located over an aquifer; therefore, impacts will not be anticipated in this area.

Proposed improvements for the new Niagara Falls Intermodal Transportation Center will not be 

located within any identified aquifers; therefore, impacts from the proposed station construction 

will not be anticipated. 

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, and signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described.

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A would include construction of four miles of second track through areas of 

Manhattan and Bronx Counties (MPs 9 to 13). In addition, 1.4 miles of new track would be 

constructed in Westchester County, extending under the Tappan Zee Bridge, for the Tarrytown 

Pocket Track/Interlocking (MPs 23 to 25). The proposed improvements in these areas would not 

pass over any identified aquifers; therefore, impacts from the proposed additional track would not 

be anticipated. 

With Alternative 90A, signal improvements proposed along 43 miles (MPs 32.8 and 75.8) would 

extend through Westchester (northernmost portion), Putnam, and Dutchess Counties. Proposed 

improvements would pass over the Croton-Ossining Primary Aquifer (MPs 32 to 35), as well as 

principal aquifers located north of Peekskill in Westchester County (MPs 41 to 43), south of Cold 

Spring in Putnam County (MPs 51 to 52), and south of New Hamburg in Dutchess County (MP 65). 

Improvements would primarily occur within the existing right-of-way, and would likely not include 

a change to the existing water quality and impervious surfaces; therefore, the proposed signal 

improvements would have minimal direct and/or indirect impacts to the identified aquifers in 

these areas.

In addition, 10 miles of new third track (MPs 53 to 63) and improvements at the Poughkeepsie 

Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 75.8) would be located within urban areas in Dutchess County. 

The proposed improvements in these areas would not pass over any identified aquifers; therefore, 

impacts from the proposed additional track would not be anticipated. 

North of Poughkeepsie and south of Albany-Rensselaer Station (MPs 75.8 to 140), proposed 

improvements would include rock slope stabilization (MPs 105 to 130) and three new control 

points (CP 82, CP 99, and CP 136), as well as station improvements at Rhinecliff Station (MP 89) 

and Hudson Station (MP 113). New York State principal aquifers would underlie three small areas 

along this segment of track (near MPs 108, 111, and 135). The area underlying the Hudson River is 

designated as a New York State principal aquifer, and portions of the track would pass over, or 

would be located immediately adjacent to, the aquifer. These improvements would occur largely 

within the right-of-way and would not include substantial impacts outside the right-of-way. 

Although proposed improvements such as rock slope stabilization may potentially increase 

impervious surfaces, depending on the design, this would have minimal or no impacts on 

underlying aquifers.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-115

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

In addition, Alternative 90A would include the replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which 

would extend over the Hudson River between the cities of Rensselaer and Albany. The area 

underlying the Hudson River is designated as a New York State principal aquifer. Depending on the 

construction and excavation depths and the design of the proposed bridge replacement, associated 

construction activities in this area would have the potential to directly and/or indirectly impact the 

aquifer, but these impacts would be temporary in nature. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 90A, track improvements would include approximately 10 miles of third track 

between MPs 169 and 178.5, and Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this

segment. MP 169 is located on the westernmost edge of the Schenectady Primary Aquifer; the 

remainder of the segment, including the Amsterdam Station, would be generally located within a 

principal aquifer that generally underlies the Mohawk River. Adding rail ties and ballast for the 

new track would involve minimal impacts to underlying aquifers; therefore, the proposed 

improvements would have minimal direct and/or indirect impacts to the above-mentioned primary 

and principal aquifers.

Upgrades to interlockings and automatic block signals would also occur at three control points in 

the Cities of Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome (CP 175, CP 239, and CP 248, respectively). The control 

points would be located within the boundaries of the principal aquifer, which would generally 

underlie the Mohawk River. Proposed improvements would primarily occur within the existing 

right-of-way, and would not likely include a change to the existing water quality and impervious 

surfaces.

Alternative 90A would include Syracuse Station track improvements (MPs 290 to 294), Rochester 

Station track and platform improvements (MPs 368 to 373), and third track improvements along 11 

miles (MPs 373 to 382) west of the station. Where the railroad enters the City of Syracuse, it would 

pass over the Baldwinsville Primary Aquifer. Adding rail ties and even ballast for the new track 

would involve minimal impacts to underlying aquifers. Depending on the construction and 

excavation depths associated with the proposed station and platform improvements, station 

improvements could have the potential to minimally impact the Baldwinsville Primary Aquifer. The 

improvements in the City of Rochester west of the station, including the addition of a third track 

along 11 miles located largely west of the City of Rochester (MPs 382 to 393) and extending into 

Genesee County would not be located over an aquifer; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated 

in this area.

Alternative 90A would include station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 429 to 

432), double track along the Niagara Branch (MPs QDN17 to QDN23), and improvements to the 

Niagara Falls Maintenance facility (including additional storage tracks and construction of a new 

maintenance building). The proposed improvements in these areas would not pass over any 

identified aquifers; therefore, impacts from the proposed additional track would not be anticipated. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

Page 4-116 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Adding rail ties and ballast for the additional track would involve minimal impacts to underlying 

aquifers. In addition, improvements would primarily occur within the existing right-of-way, and 

would not likely include a change to the existing water quality and impervious surfaces; therefore, 

minimal impacts to aquifers would be anticipated. The sections below describe areas where 

proposed third and fourth track improvements would be located above an aquifer, and, the 

construction of the tracks and possibly also pervious rail beds would involve minimal impacts to 

any aquifers in these areas.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed. With the exception of the impacts to aquifers discussed above, no other impacts would 

be anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

In Schenectady County, the proposed new track construction would occur between MP 159 and MP 

167, extending from the City of Schenectady to the west. In addition, proposed improvements 

would occur at the Schenectady Station (MP 159), and a larger track shift, which may require 

property acquisition, is proposed for the westernmost part of the county (MP 168). All of the 

proposed improvements would occur above two aquifer types: the Schenectady-Niskayuna SSA and 

the Schenectady Primary Aquifer. 

Within Montgomery, Herkimer and Oneida Counties, there would be new track additions 

throughout the county. In addition, proposed station improvements would occur at the Amsterdam 

Station. The majority of the alignment in these counties would be underlain or immediately 

adjacent to principal aquifers that generally underlie the Mohawk River. 

In Madison County the proposed new track construction would not pass over any aquifers. 

Therefore, impacts from the proposed additional track to any nearby aquifers would not be 

anticipated. 

Within Onondaga County the proposed new track construction and proposed improvements at the 

Syracuse Station (MPs 290 to 294) would occur in areas underlain by the Baldwinsville Primary 

Aquifer (MPs 290 to 307) and principal aquifers (MPs 307 to 309). 

In Cayuga and Wayne Counties, the proposed new track construction would pass over areas 

underlain by principal aquifers on the eastern portion of Cayuga County (MPs 309 to 315) and 

principal aquifers associated with the Ganargua Creek and nearby tributaries to the Erie Canal (MPs 

332 to 337 and 340 to 357) in Wayne County. 

Within Monroe County, the proposed new track construction would extend through areas underlain 

by the Irondongenessee Primary Aquifer on the eastern portion of the county (scattered in and 

around MPs 358 to 367). In addition, principal aquifers would underlay the alignment on the 

eastern portion of the county (MPs 357 to 360). Improvements at the Rochester Station (MPs 368 

to 373), would occur to the west of the identified aquifers; therefore, no impacts would be 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-117

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

anticipated in this area. 

In Genesee County, the proposed new track construction would extend through areas underlain by 

the Batvia Primary Aquifer (MPs 401 to 405); no other aquifers underlay the alignment in this 

county. 

In Erie County, the proposed third track construction along Empire Corridor West and the double 

tracking along the Niagara Branch (between MPs QDN2 and QDN7) would not be underlain by a 

principal aquifer and impacts would not be anticipated. As discussed in Alternative 90A, no other 

impacts to aquifers are anticipated in Erie and Niagara Counties. 

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

As for the 90B Alternative, adding rail ties and even ballast for the additional track would involve 

minimal impacts to underlying aquifers. In addition, improvements would primarily occur within 

the existing right-of-way, and would not likely include a change to the existing water quality and 

impervious surfaces; therefore, minimal impacts to aquifers would be anticipated. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed and additional impacts to underlying aquifers and/or adjoining surface water features 

would not be anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, track realignments and third and fourth track improvements would traverse 

the aquifer and surface water features as described in Alternatives 90A and 90B. No other impacts 

other than those described above for Alternatives 90A and 90B would be anticipated for Alternative 

110.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Page 4-118 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River. The area underlying the Hudson River is designated as a New York State principal aquifer; 

therefore, depending on the construction and excavation depths, construction activities in this area 

may have the potential to temporarily impact the aquifer.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. 

Construction of a new rail corridor could require more excavations and drainage alterations and 

therefore would involve a higher potential to directly impact existing groundwater resources than 

the other alternatives. These actions may include new bridge construction; therefore, there would 

be the potential for construction of bridge foundations to temporarily or possibly even permanently 

impact aquifers from the construction of Alternative 125. The sections below describe areas where 

the proposed railroad alignment would be located above an aquifer, and therefore have the 

potential to impact these aquifers.

This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a point 8.5 miles 

east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 would extend through Albany and Schenectady Counties 

over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) over most of this 

distance. This segment of the alignment would extend over New York State principal aquifers 

(approximately MPs QH147 to QH162) and the Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer 

(approximately MPs QH152 to QH153). 

In Schoharie and Montgomery Counties, the alignment would extend over New York State principal 

aquifers (approximately MPs QH173 to QH177 and MPs QH180 to QH185). 

In Herkimer and Oneida Counties, Alternative 125 would extend over New York State principal 

aquifers in several small segments of the alignment (approximately MPs QH202, QH204, QH212, 

QH215, QH217 to QH220, QH224 to QH226, QH228 to QH230, QH235 to QH236, QH240 to QH241, 

and QH249 to QH250). In Madison County, the proposed track would extend over a New York State 

principal aquifer on the easternmost portion of the county (MP QH250). 

In Onondaga County, the alignment would merge with the existing Empire Corridor through the 

City of Syracuse; any proposed improvements in this area would have the same impacts as stated in 

the 90A/90B/110 Alternatives. Alternative 125 would extend off the existing Empire Corridor on 

the western city limits and passes over several segments of the Baldwinsville Primary Aquifer (MPs 

QH285 to QH294). The alignment would then extend through Cayuga County, where only small 

portions (MPs QH304, QH305, and QH306) overlay New York State principal aquifers. 

In Wayne County, Alternative 125 would extend across several small segments of New York State 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-119

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

principal aquifers primarily along the eastern portion of the county (MPs QH313 to QH315, QH316, 

QH317.5, QH322, QH323, QH324.5, QH325.5, QH327, QH328.5, QH331.5, QH332.5, QH336 to 

QH337, QH340 to QH341, and QH342). The Ironodgenesee Primary Aquifer is located at the 

western county boundary (MP QH342). As the alignment extends through Monroe County, it would 

pass over the Ironodgenesee Primary Aquifer (MPs QH342 to QH345) until merging with the 

existing Empire Corridor east of the City of Rochester. The alignment would remain on the existing 

Empire Corridor to the east of the city; no other aquifers would be encountered in the remainder of 

Monroe County. 

In Genesee County, with the exception of a small segment of New York State principal aquifer 

(approximately MP QH399), the Alternative 125 alignment would not pass over any aquifers. In 

Erie County, the alignment would extend over small segregated areas (MPs QH408 and QH409) 

underlain by New York State principal aquifers. The alignment would then merge with the existing 

Empire Corridor; no other aquifers would be encountered in either Erie or Niagara Counties. 

4.12.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During the Tier 2 analysis, program designs will be developed and site-specific mapping prepared 

in order to better assess site-specific impacts of any proposed improvements. To the extent 

practicable, project development and design will incorporate measures to minimize and/or avoid 

impacts to water quality and recharge of underlying aquifers. To comply with State water quality 

standards (i.e., 6 NYCRR Part 703), NYSDOT will identify and incorporate, as appropriate, 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) prepared in accordance with the NYSDEC State 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit program or Erosion and Sediment Control 

(ESC) Plans. These plans would address stormwater management and appropriate Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) into the design of the program. The SPDES construction stormwater 

general permit program, discussed in Section 4.6, the “Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses,” 

may authorize all discharges of stormwater from construction activity to surface waters of the state 

and groundwaters for sites disturbing an acre or more of land. Application of BMPs as defined in 

the SWPPPs or ESC plans will reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation resulting from 

construction activities. BMPs could include centralized refueling, storing absorbent material and 

booms on-site, and locating portable fuel tanks in upland sites on a low permeability substrate. 

4.12.6. Future Analysis

During the Tier 2 analysis, program impact assessments based on design and site-specific mapping 

will be prepared. Projects must meet existing federal requirements regarding Sole Source Aquifers 

as well as state requirements regarding primary and principal aquifers. If a project is federally 

funded and will impact a Sole Source Aquifer, federal review and/or approval is required pursuant 

to Section 1424(e) of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act. A Section 1424(e) review is required for 

federally funded projects in Sole Source Aquifer Areas that may have the potential to create a 

significant hazard to public health, defined by the U.S. EPA as:

• Exceeding any National Drinking Water Standards at any point where the water may be used 

for drinking purposes, or

• Otherwise threaten public health.

In making this determination, the following factors, at a minimum, are considered by the U.S. EPA:

Page 4-120 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

• The toxicity of the contaminants involved,

• The volume of contaminants that may enter the aquifer, and

• The physical and chemical hydrogeological characteristics of the aquifer and its attenuation

capability.

For the Section 1424(e) review, NYSDOT may be required to prepare a Groundwater Assessment 

Report, which would be included in the Tier 2 Draft Design Approval Document and program NEPA 

document(s). 

To comply with state law, the NYSDOT must document whether a project would adversely affect a 

NYSDEC designated primary aquifer, principal aquifer, or drinking water supply sources (e.g., 

reservoirs, wells, etc.,). Tier 2 will include additional research to identify and document water 

supplies potentially affected by a project. If a project is not in a NYSDEC designated aquifer but it is 

within 650 feet of public (municipal) or private drinking water supply sources, feasible 

modifications to the project that will avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to the water 

sources will be evaluated and, if possible, incorporated. If a municipal source is involved, the 

NYSDOT must coordinate with the affected municipality and the state/local Health Department to 

discuss any 1) findings (project has or does not have the potential to affect water quality), and 2) 

appropriate actions, if needed. 

In Tier 2, NYSDOT will need to assess, and briefly describe, in the Groundwater Assessment Report, 

potential positive and negative program impacts to the primary aquifer, principal aquifer, or nearby 

water sources (e.g., wells). This assessment will evaluate and incorporate modifications to the 

program that will avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to the aquifer or drinking water 

supply sources. NYSDOT should circulate the "Groundwater Assessment Report" to federal 

transportation agencies funding the program and the U.S. EPA as part of the Tier 2 NEPA review. If 

a municipal source is involved, NYSDOT may need to coordinate with the affected municipality and 

the local/state health department.

4.13. General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

4.13.1. Regulatory Context

Wildlife and aquatic habitats are protected under several regulatory programs at the federal and 

state level. The U.S. Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take” of any plant or animal species 

listed as endangered or threatened under this act, or their designated critical habitat. Section 7 of 

the Act requires consultation for actions that may affect listed species or their designated habitats 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) (for freshwater and wildlife) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) (for marine and anadromous species).119 

State protection of listed species is provided under New York State Environmental Conservation 

Law (ECL) Title 5-11-0535 Endangered and Threatened Species and Title 15-9-1503 Removal of 

Protected Plants and corresponding regulations.120 These state endangered and species protections 

prohibit the “take” of any plant or animal species listed as endangered, threatened, rare or 

119/ United States Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1531-1543). 120/ 6 NYCRR Part 182 (Environmental Conservation Law—Endangered and Threatened Species) and Part 193 (Protected Native Plants)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-121

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

exploitably vulnerable under these regulations. State regulations also established the Natural 

Heritage Areas Program in 2002 in order to conserve and manage rare plants and wildlife and 

significant natural communities on state-owned lands. 

Provisions in the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act require the 

NMFS to identify and protect important habitats of federally managed marine and anadromous fish 

species, or Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Federal agencies that fund, permit, or undertake activities 

that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the NMFS regarding the potential effects 

of their actions on EFH. 

The ecological and environmental inventory and evaluation considered the impacts of program 

activities on the environment and are consistent with the approach to environmental impact 

assessments as described in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) report, Incorporating 

Biodiversity Considerations into Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (65 Federal Register [FR] 28545). 

This ecological assessment also was performed in accordance with the New York State Department 

of Transportation (NYSDOT) The Environmental Manual (TEM) provides guidance and restrictions 

for planning and designing applicable highway projects. 

The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) designates certain 

privately- and publicly-held lands across the country as National Natural Landmarks (NNL). This 

designation is based on the lands’ unique or rare ecological characteristics. Although there are no 

specific federal or state regulations for NNLs, governing regulations for the NNL Program state that 

any federal project that is subject to NEPA, “...should consider the existence and location of 

designated national natural landmarks...in assessing the effects of their activities on the environment 

under section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act.” (16 U.S.C. 1a–5, 461 et seq., 463, 

1908).121

Protection of migratory birds is also provided under U.S. FWS Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 

which prohibits, unless permitted by regulations, the “take” of any migratory bird122. The Federal 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) provides for the protection of bald and 

golden eagles. Birds are also protected under state legislation.

State legislation establishing the Bird Conservation Area (BCA) program was enacted on September 

5, 1997 to safeguard and enhance populations of native wild birds and habitats that birds are 

dependent upon on state-owned lands and waters. According to ECL §11-2001, a site must meet 

one or more of the following criteria to be designated as a Bird Conservation Area: waterfowl 

concentration site, pelagic seabird site, shorebird concentration site, wading bird concentration 

site, migratory concentration site, diverse species concentration site, individual species 

concentration site, species at risk site, and bird research site (see BCA Criteria). 

121/ “National Natural Landmarks Program.” Federal Register 64 (May 12, 1999) p. 25717. 122/ Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), (16 U.S.C. 703–712).

Page 4-122 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.13.2. Methodology

Information on ecological habitat and endangered and threatened species for study areas within a 

half-mile of the corridor centerline for all alternatives was obtained from the U.S. FWS, the NYSDEC, 

and the New York Natural Heritage Program. Information from the U.S. FWS on federal listing 

status and occurrences by county was consulted. The National Marine Fisheries Habitat 

Conservation Division for the Northeastern U.S. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations and 

Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions for the Hudson River was consulted to identify EFH. GIS 

information obtained included NYSDEC mapping of ecological zones and New York Natural 

Heritage Program mapping of occurrences of listed species. Digital data from NYSDEC consulted 

included mapping of significant natural communities.123 NYSDEC GIS mapping for designated bird 

conservation areas was also consulted. 

4.13.3. Existing Conditions

The following sections address ecological zones in the one-mile wide study area for the Empire 

Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and the 125 Study Area. The documented occurrences and 

likelihood of occurrences for federally and state-endangered/threatened species in each study area 

is presented, along with documented occurrences of NYNHP-designated Natural Heritage Areas and 

significant natural communities within a half- mile of the corridor centerlines. The Essential Fish 

Habitats protected under the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, 

state-protected Bird Conservation Areas on public lands, and other ecologically significant areas 

(such as National Natural Landmarks) within a half- mile of the corridor centerline are also 

covered. 

Ecological Zones

Along the 464-mile Empire Corridor 90/110 Study Area and the 450-mile 125 Study Area, the 

corridor centerlines transition through areas of urban, suburban, and rural habitats. Five ecological 

zones (Zones, B, C, D, F, and H), as documented by the NYSDEC, are identified within each corridor 

study area (refer to Exhibit 4-21). The topography ranges from low-elevation floodplains to steep 

hills, and vegetation is generally considered part of the north hardwood vegetation zone.124.

 

The ecological zones are described below:

• Zone B—Great Lakes Plain(major habitat): This ecozone along Empire Corridor West and 

Niagara Branch comprises almost half of the study area. The two subzones are:

o Drumlin: This zone is situated in the elm-red-maple northern hardwood natural 

vegetation zone. Structurally, it is a plateau with horizontal rock formations. The Drumlin 

subgroup has elongated hills that formed from glacial deposits. This ecological subzone 

comprises 15 percent of the 90/110 Study Area and 23 percent of the 125 Study Area.

123/ NYSDEC, GeoData Inventory: <http://www.dec.ny.gov/geodata/>.

124/ NYSDEC, “EcoZones,” Accessed June 2011. <http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1131>.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-123

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-21—New York State Ecological Zones Located Within the Study Area 

Zone

Habitat

Location

Acres in Study Area

Major Minor 90/110 Study Area 125 Study Area

Zone B Great Lakes Plain

Drumlin

Monroe 3,353 3,130

Wayne 23,732 22,386

Cayuga 7,344 7,087

Onondaga 9,403 9,550

Erie-Ontario Plain

Niagara 8,534 8,534

Erie 19,870 21,524

Genesee 19,204 19,025

Monroe 16,432 15,773

Wayne 0 307

Onondaga 10,548 10,634

Madison 9,009 9,311

Oneida 11,348 11,283

Zone C Mohawk Valley Mohawk Valley

Oneida 6,900 2,871

Herkimer 16,172 16,211

Montgomery 25,696 13,618

Schoharie 0 3,664

Schenectady 3,928 7,670

Zone D Hudson Valley Central Hudson

Schenectady 5,546 3,670

Albany 8,491 9,834

Rensselaer 7,558 7,199

Columbia 15,716 15,716

Greene 2,792 2,792

Dutchess 25,045 25,045

Ulster 3,282 3,282

Orange 234 234

Zone F Hudson Highlands Hudson Highlands

Dutchess 877 877

Orange 1,410 1,410

Putnam 4,629 4,629

Rockland 559 559

Westchester 1,433 1,433

Zone H Manhattan Hills Manhattan Hills

Rockland 48 48

Westchester 18,036 18,036

Bronx 878 878

New York 4,195 4,195

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. 

Source: NYSDEC, 2011.

Page 4-124 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

o Erie Ontario Plain: This zone is situated in the elm-red-maple northern hardwood natural 

vegetation zone. Only about one-fifth of the land is forested. Structurally, it is a plateau

with horizontal rock formations. This ecological subzone comprises 33 percent of the 

90/110 Study Area and 26 percent of the 125 Study Area.

• Zone C—Mohawk Valley (major/minor habitat): The Mohawk Valley is in the northern 

hardwood natural vegetation zone. Nearly all the forest is on farms. Terrain consists of either 

rolling plains with gentle slopes, or hills with moderate slopes. This ecozone west of and 

including Schenectady County comprises 18 percent of the 90/110 Study Area and 16 percent 

of the 125 Study Area.

• Zone D—Hudson Valley (major habitat), Central Hudson (minor habitat): The Hudson 

Valley is part of the oak-northern hardwood natural vegetation zone. Pitch pines and scrub 

oaks are found in the sand plains in the Albany vicinity. A complex of hills and terraces are 

underlain with highly folded sedimentary rock. This ecozone that extends from Orange and 

Dutchess Counties north to Albany and Schenectady Counties comprises 24 percent of both the 

90/110 and 125 Study Areas .

• Zone F—Hudson Highlands (major/minor habitat): This zone is in the oak natural 

vegetation zone. Young stands of pioneer hardwoods and oaks are most common. This zone is 

continuous with the New Jersey Highlands to the south. The terrain is rolling to steep and is 

rough and stony. This ecozone, from Westchester County north, comprises 3 percent of the 

study area.

• Zone H—Manhattan Hills (major/minor habitat): The Manhattan Hills are considered part 

of the oak and the oak-northern hardwood natural vegetation zones. Pioneer hardwoods and 

oaks are most common. The terrain is rolling to hilly. This ecozone, which includes the 

metropolitan New York area, comprises 8 percent of the study area. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Upon consultation with the resource agencies, it was documented that 102 plant and wildlife 

species listed as federally and/or state-endangered or threatened are known to occur in the vicinity 

of the Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and 119 species in the vicinity of the 125 Study Area. 

Exhibit G-19 and G-20 of Appendix G presents the list of federally and state-endangered and 

threatened species documented or suspected to potentially occur within the one-mile-wide study 

area for both the 90/110 mph and the 125 mph study areas. The species protective status and 

county of known occurrence for both study areas are included in Exhibit 4-22 and Exhibit 4-23, 

along with a summary of the number of species occurrences by county. 

Of the 102 species in the Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area), one is a mammal, three are fish 

species, nine are birds, six are reptiles, three are invertebrates, two are mollusks, and the vast 

majority (78) are plants. There are 12 federally listed endangered or threatened species, and 90 

state-listed species.

Of the 119 species in the 125 Study Area, one is a mammal, three are fish species, nine are birds, six 

are reptiles, three are invertebrates, two are mollusks, and the remainder (95) are plants. There 

are 12 federally listed endangered or threatened species, and 107 state-listed species.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-125

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-22—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 90/110 

Study Area 

County Federal Status State Status

Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened

New York 2 0 4 0

Bronx 2 0 2 4

Westchester 3 1 14 6

Rockland 3 2 5 4

Putnam 3 1 8 9

Orange 4 2 8 4

Dutchess 4 1 13 15

Ulster 3 3 10 5

Columbia 3 1 6 10

Greene 3 0 6 6

Rensselaer 3 0 4 2

Albany 4 1 10 9

Schenectady 2 0 3 1

Montgomery 0 0 0 1

Herkimer 0 0 0 0

Oneida 1 0 4 5

Madison 1 2 2 3

Onondaga 1 4 6 5

Cayuga 1 1 4 3

Wayne 1 2 6 6

Monroe 0 1 4 3

Genesee 0 3 3 4

Erie 0 0 2 5

Niagara 0 1 1 4

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long 

Empire Corridor alignment. The study area width is defined as being within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. 

Sources: U.S.FWS, 2011; NYSDEC, 2011 

There are five federally endangered species in the study area: shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), dwarf 

wedge-mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and Karner blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). The Hudson 

River provides habitat for federally protected species in all Empire Corridor South counties 

between New York and Albany. The New York Bight Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic 

sturgeon was listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012125 and is also 

documented in the Hudson River. According to the NYSDEC website, in New York, Atlantic sturgeon 

is generally found in the deeper portions of the Hudson River. While occasionally found as far 

upriver as Albany, young fish are rarely seen upstream of Hudson in Columbia County.126

125/ National Marine Fisheries Service, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened and Endangered Status for Distinct 

Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region., Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 24, 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224. February 

6, 2012.

126/ NYSDEC, “New York Sturgeon,” Accessed October 27, 2011. < http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7025.html >

Page 4-126 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-23—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 125 

Study Area

County Federal Status State Status

Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened

New York 2 0 4 0

Bronx 2 0 2 4

Westchester 3 1 14 6

Rockland 3 2 5 4

Putnam 3 1 8 9

Orange 4 2 8 4

Dutchess 4 1 13 14

Ulster 3 3 10 5

Columbia 3 1 6 10

Greene 3 0 6 6

Rensselaer 3 0 4 2

Albany 4 1 10 13

Schenectady 2 0 3 0

Schoharie 1 0 1 0

Montgomery 0 0 0 0

Herkimer 0 0 1 0

Oneida 1 0 4 2

Madison 1 2 2 6

Onondaga 1 4 6 5

Cayuga 1 1 7 4

Wayne 1 2 5 6

Monroe 0 1 5 3

Genesee 0 3 10 12

Erie 0 0 2 5

Niagara 0 1 1 3

Note: The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and

new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. 

Sources: U.S.FWS, 2011; NYSDEC, 2011 

An assessment of each species’ potential to occur in each study area is included in Exhibit G-19 and 

G-20 of Appendix G. Exhibit 4-22 and Exhibit 4-23 below summarizes the numbers of endangered 

and threatened species occurrences within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. This assessment 

was based on the habitat, range, ecological requirements and the date and quality of the occurrence 

record for each species known to occur in the vicinity of the Empire Corridor study areas. The 

following criteria were used to determine whether a resource has a high, moderate, low, or unlikely 

potential for occurrence in the study areas.

• High (H): Suitable habitat for listed resource is present in the study area and a resource 

occurrence has been recorded in the study area after 1980. The resource has a high probability 

of being found on the site.

• Moderate (M): Suitable habitat occurs within the study area and/or a resource occurrence has 

been recorded in the study area before 1980 and/or a resource occurrence has been recorded 

near, but not within the study area. The resource has a moderate probability of being found on 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-127

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

the site. If existing data proved inadequate to assess species’ potential for occurrence in the 

study area, the potential was considered Moderate by default.

• Low (L): Suitable habitat is present, or marginal habitat is present in the study area, and/or the 

study area is not within the resources’ historic range, and/or there are no documented 

occurrences of the resource within or near the study area. The resource has a low probability 

of being found on the site.

• Unlikely (U): Suitable habitat is not found in the study area, the study area is not within the 

historic or current range of the resource, or there are no documented occurrences of the 

resource within or near the study area. It is unlikely that the resource would be found on the 

site.

Based on these criteria, a total of 67 species are considered to have a high or moderate potential for 

occurrence in the Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area). This includes eight birds, three fish, two 

invertebrates, one mammal, 49 vascular plants and four reptile species. 

Of the species with a high to moderate potential for occurrence in the Empire Corridor (90/110 

Study Area), five are federally listed, with four endangered and one threatened species. The species 

with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence include 62 state-listed species, 21 of which are 

endangered and 41 are threatened.

A total of 77 species are considered to have a high or moderate potential for occurrence in the 125 

Study Area. This includes eight bird, three fish, two insect, one mammal, 59 vascular plant, four 

reptile species. Of the species with a high to moderate potential for occurrence in the 125 Study 

Area, five are federally listed, with four endangered and one threatened species. The species with a 

moderate to high likelihood of occurrence include 72 state-listed species, 28 of which are 

endangered and 44 are threatened.

Sixteen species were ranked as unlikely to occur in the Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area), and 

20 were ranked as unlikely to occur in the 125 Study Area. The species ranked as unlikely to occur 

may include a federally listed species that occurs in the same county, but which is not documented 

or expected to occur in the study area. Conversely, state records at one point in time may have 

indicated an occurrence, whereas the updated records may indicate the species is extirpated or the 

quality of the NYNHP record is poor and more current records from other sources indicate the 

species is unlikely to occur.

Essential Fish Habitat

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has designated thirteen species of fish as Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH) in the study area. Exhibit 4-24 shows species for which EFH has been 

designated by the NMFS and the life stage that has the potential to be found in the study area. The 

EFH occurrence analysis compared the associated species’ life stage, water depth and salinity 

requirements to those ecological parameters within the Hudson River. 

EFH species in the study area from New York to Greene Counties, in decreasing order of county 

occurrences, include summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus), red hake (Urophycis chuss), winter 

flounder (Pseudopleur onectes americanus), windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus), Atlantic 

sea herring (Clupea harengus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), black sea bass (Centropristus 

Page 4-128 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-24—Essential Fish Habitat in the Study Area

EFH Species/Stages County of Potential Occurrence*

Common Name 

Scientific Name

Life Stage

New 

York Bronx Westchester Rockland Putnam Orange Dutchess Ulster Columbia Greene

Red Hake

Urophycis chuss LJA LJA LJA LJA LJA LJA

Winter Flounder

Pseudopleuronectes

Americanus

ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa

Window-pane 

Flounder

Scopthalmus aquosus

ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa ELJASa

Atlantic Sea Herring

Clupea harengus LJA LJA LJA LJA LJA LJA

Bluefish

Pomatomus saltatrix JA JA JA JA JA JA

Atlantic butterfish

Peprilus triacanthus JA JA LJA LJA

Atlantic mackerel

Scomber scombrus JA JA

Summer flounder

Paralicthys dentatus LJA LJA LJA LJA LJA LJA L L L L

Scup

Stenotomus chrysops ELJA ELJA

Black sea bass

Centropristus striata JA JA JA JA JA JA

King mackerel

Scomberomorous 

cavalla

ELJA ELJA

Spanish mackerel

Scoberomorous 

maculatus

ELJA

Cobia

Rachycentron canadu ELJA ELJA

Note: Life stages are: E = eggs, L = larvae, J = juveniles, A = Adults, Sa = spawning adults

striata), Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), scup 

(Stenotomus chrysops), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), and 

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates).

Natural Heritage Areas/Significant Natural Communities

The only designated Natural Heritage Areas in the study area is the Tivoli Bays. In 2007, the Tivoli 

Bays was designated by NYSDEC as the first Natural Heritage Area in New York State127. The 

127/ NOAA, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve: Revised Management Plan, 2009-2014. Accessed January 12, 2011. 

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/hrnerrmpall.pdf>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-129

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

designation of the Tivoli Bays Natural Heritage Area made the protection of rare plants, fauna, and 

natural habitats a key management priority of the site. 

The NYNHP maintains a comprehensive database on the status and location of natural communities 

in New York State. The NYNHP considers “significant” natural communities to be those that are 

rare in New York State or that are “outstanding” examples of more common communities. 

Presently, 174 natural community types are monitored throughout the state. Of these, 103 

communities are located in the existing Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area) and 107 

communities are located in the 125 Study Area. Significant natural communities identified this way 

are not afforded state or federal legal protective status, but they are addressed in the analyses due 

to their important role in statewide ecological conservation. Exhibit 4-25 shows the known 

distribution of significant natural communities located in the vicinity of the study area.

Bird Conservation Areas

There are six bird conservation areas located in both study areas. Iona Island/Doodletown bird 

conservation area is located in Bear Mountain State Park along the western side of the Hudson 

River in Rockland County. The 1,500 acres of tidally-influenced wetlands and adjacent uplands are 

managed by the Palisades Park Commission. Constitution Marsh is a 270-acre tidal marsh, owned 

by NYSDEC and Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation and has been managed by the 

National Audubon Society as a wildlife sanctuary since 1970.128 It is located in Putnam County on 

the east shore of the Hudson River. Tivoli Bay, part of the NYSDEC Tivoli Bay State Unique Area, 

extends for two miles along the east shore of the Hudson River between the Villages of Tivoli and 

Barrytown, in Dutchess County. 129 Schodack Island State Park is located just off the eastern shore 

of the Hudson River in Rensselaer County. Approximately seven miles of Hudson River and 

Schodack Creek shoreline bound the 1,052-acre site, which is part of the New York State Park 

System managed by the NYSDEC.130 Approximately 1,514 acres of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve 

(described below) are designated as a bird conservation area. The Montezuma Wetlands Complex 

bird conservation area consists of 7,500 acres within a larger complex of state, federal and 

privately-owned lands that offer high-quality wetland and upland habitat in Wayne County and 

Cayuga County.131

Other Conservation and Ecologically Significant Areas

Other ecological habitats include Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats designated under the 

state coastal program, Critical Environmental Areas designated for protection under the State 

Environmental Quality Review Act, and publicly owned and non-profit parks. Under the U.S. 

Coastal Zone Management Act, the State of New York has established a state coastal program. As 

part of the state’s coastal program, 31 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats within a halfmile of the corridor centerline have been designated for protection. These designated areas are 

addressed in Section 4.11. 

The State Environmental Quality Review Act also provides for designation of Critical Environmental 

128/ National Audubon Society. “Constitution Marsh Audubon Center & Sanctuary,” Accessed June 2011. 

<http://www.constitutionmarsh.org>

129/ NYSDEC. “DEC Lands,” Accessed June 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4915.html>

130/ NYSDEC, “New York State Parks,” Accessed June 2011. <http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/146/details.aspx.> 131/ NYSDEC, “DEC Lands, “ Accessed June 2011. < http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/25341.html>

Page 4-130 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-25—Significant Natural Communities in the Study Area

County

Number of 

Communities Types of Significant Natural Communities

Westchester 6

Brackish intertidal mudflats, chestnut oak forest, oak tulip tree forest, 

rocky summit grassland, Appalachian oak hickory forest, brackish tidal 

marsh.

Rockland 2 Brackish intertidal mudflats, brackish tidal marsh.

Putnam 10

chestnut oak forest, pitch pine-oak heath rocky summit (three locations), 

red cedar rocky summit, Appalachian oak hickory forest, oak tulip tree 

forest, brackish intertidal mudflats, brackish tidal marsh, chestnut oak 

forest

Orange 2 Brackish tidal marsh, brackish intertidal mudflats.

Dutchess 28

Freshwater tidal swamp (four locations), freshwater tidal marsh (six 

locations), hemlock northern hardwood forest, freshwater intertidal 

mudflats (four locations), freshwater intertidal shore (two locations), 

brackish intertidal mudflats, brackish tidal marsh, hemlock northern 

hardwood forest, limestone woodland, oak tulip tree forest, red cedar 

rocky summit, chestnut oak forest, pitch pine-oak heath rocky summit, 

red cedar rocky summit, Appalachian oak hickory forest, oak tulip tree 

forest.

Ulster 4 Freshwater intertidal shore, freshwater tidal swamp, freshwater intertidal 

mudflats, freshwater tidal marsh.

Columbia 22

Freshwater intertidal shore, calcareous cliff community, freshwater tidal 

swamp (three locations), freshwater tidal marsh (nine locations),

freshwater intertidal shore, freshwater intertidal mudflats (six locations), 

floodplain forest. 

Greene 11

Freshwater tidal marsh (five locations), floodplain forest, freshwater 

intertidal mudflats (two locations), freshwater tidal swamp, freshwater 

tidal creek (two locations).

Rensselaer 2 Floodplain forest, freshwater tidal marsh.

Albany 5 Freshwater tidal marsh, pine barrens vernal pool (two locations), pitch 

pine-scrub oak barrens, pitch pine-oak forest.

Montgomery 2 Calcareous cliff community, calcareous talus slope woodland.

Herkimer 1 Floodplain forest.

Onondaga 1 Inland salt pond.

Cayuga 2 Floodplain forest1, Rich graminoid fen2.

Genesee 4 Silver-maple ash swamp2, Rich graminoid fen2, Northern white cedar 

swamp2, Marl fen2.

Wayne 3 Floodplain forest (two locations), silver maple-ash swamp.

Erie 1 Rich graminoid fen.

Niagara 2 Calcareous talus slope woodland, calcareous cliff community.

1Occurs only in the Empire Corridor 90/110 study area.

2Occurs only in the Empire Corridor 125 study area.

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long 

Empire Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing 

Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within a half-mile of the 

corridor centerline. 

Source: New York Natural Heritage Program, NYSDEC. February 2011 and January 2012. Biodiversity Databases, Element Occurrence 

Record Digital Data Set. Albany, New York

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-131

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Areas, including those that are ecologically significant. The five SEQR Critical Environmental Areas 

within the study area are addressed in Section 4.14.

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) of 1969, as 

amended, provides protection of publicly owned wildlife refuges, parks, and recreation areas. 

Habitat areas within the study area that are protected under Section 4(f) include a National Wildlife 

Refuge, state Wildlife Management Areas and Unique Areas and preserves, and state, county, 

municipal, and non-profit conservation areas and parks. These areas are identified and addressed 

in Section 4.16 (“Parks and Recreational Areas”). 

In addition to the above areas, the Albany Pine Bush Preserve as defined in ECL Article 46 is 

identified under the Parks and Recreation section, but is a known area of conservation concern. 

This area’s ecological significance, location within the Empire Corridor study areas, and legal 

protection, is of particular note. 

In 1988, the New York State Legislature created the Albany Pine Bush Preserve (Preserve) and 

Commission under ECL Article 46 to manage and protect the endangered natural communities and 

species of the Albany Pine Bush. Located in the heart of the Capital District Region, the Albany Pine 

Bush represents one of the best remaining examples of an inland pine barrens ecosystem in the 

world. It is a sand plain with a diverse plant and animal community, including 20 rare species and 

two rare natural communities. The ownership of the lands within the preserve is a mosaic of public 

and private holdings. Public lands within the preserve are owned by NYSDEC and the New York 

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; the remainder is privately held. All lands 

within the preserve are managed under 6 NYCRR Part 648, which restricts any use of the preserve 

that does not comply with the management plan outlined in that regulation.

There are approximately 3,631 acres of the preserve located in Albany County within the one-milewide existing Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area); there are approximately 3,984 acres of the 

preserve within the 125 Study Area. The two Empire Corridor study areas both cross the preserve 

roughly between the northeastern edge of the City of Albany to the county line with Schenectady. 

There are two properties with National Natural Landmark status within a half-mile of the Empire 

Corridor (90/110 Study Area) corridor centerline, including Iona Island in Rockland County 

(described above) and Moss Island in Herkimer County. Approximately 252 acres of state-owned 

Iona Island is a designated NNL based on the island’s estuarine habitat and presence of rare plants. 

The state-owned Moss Island in the Mohawk River is considered to have excellent examples of 

glacially-influenced hydrology and geology. 

In addition to the Iona Island NNL mentioned above, Hart’s Woods in Monroe County and Bergen 

Swamp in Genesee County are NNLs within the 125 Study Area. Hart’s Woods, also known as 

Beechwood Park, is owned by the Town of Perinton in Monroe County. The NNL designation for 

Hart’s Woods is based on the presence of remnant stands of original beech-maple forests. Bergen 

Swamp and other lands privately held by the Bergen Swamp Preservation Society (BSPS) 

encompass approximately 3,000 acres in northeastern Genesee County. The BSPS land is actively 

managed for ecological preservation, education, and science and the property supports a number of 

known populations of threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species.132 

132/ Bergen Swamp Preservation Society. Website homepage. Website accessed January 2012. Available: 

<http://www.bergenswamp.org/>

Page 4-132 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.13.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below identify elements of each alternative that have the potential to impact ecological 

resources, including threatened and endangered plants and animals, avian species protected under

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), National Natural Landmarks 

(NNL), bird conservation areas, significant natural communities, and other ecologically significant 

areas. Actions associated with each alternative such as direct disturbance of terrestrial habitat, 

waterway crossings, increased frequency of train trips, and higher operating speeds would all have 

the potential to impact plant or wildlife species or natural habitats. This preliminary assessment of 

potential impacts to native habitats and both protected and common plant and wildlife species is 

based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and will be further refined in Tier 2. As the project 

development process advances, efforts to avoid impacts to ecological resources will be made when 

designs are further developed.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure. Work associated with this alternative will not likely result in impacts 

caused by habitat fragmentation. 

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative will include signal and grade crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (ES-3 and ES-1, MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of 

Albany-Rensselaer Station. These work areas will be adjacent to the Hudson River in many 

locations, and there are two bird conservation areas and several records of sensitive ecological 

resources with the potential to occur within a half-mile of the corridor centerline along this portion 

of the tracks. Some sensitive species have been documented to occur adjacent to the rail right-ofway and the rail tracks pass directly through some areas identified as significant natural 

communities. The proposed work will occur within the existing rail beds; however, since the 

proposed activities will involve minimal ground disturbance, direct impacts to ecological resources 

will not be anticipated.

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at the 

Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (ES-9, MPs 141 to 143), which is located entirely 

within an urban area and will not involve impacts to ecological resources. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations (ES-10, MPs 141 to 160), as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station 

(EW-01, MP 159.8). There are protected species and significant natural communities with a high or 

moderate potential to occur in the half-mile buffer associated with this portion of the tracks. 

Additionally, the Albany Pine Bush Preserve, a bird conservation area and home to several 

threatened and endangered species, is located next to the tracks within this portion of the 

alignment. If work in this area includes disturbance of vegetation or encroachment beyond the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-133

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

existing tracks, these resources in particular will have the potential to be impacted.

Track improvements in Syracuse (EW-6, MPs 287 to 291), Rochester Station track and platform 

improvements (EW-19, MPs 368 to 373) and improvements for the new Niagara Falls Intermodal 

Transportation Center (EW-13, MP QDN28.2) are proposed on the Empire Corridor West and 

Niagara Branch. Although there are several records of sensitive resources within a half-mile of the 

corridor centerline in the vicinity of this proposed work, the work will not likely involve impacts to 

ecological resources because the work will be located within the existing rail beds or in an urban 

area.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, and signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. Alternative 

90A would also result in an increase of five trips per day. 

New tracks proposed under this alternative would not extend more than 15 feet laterally from the 

current mainline tracks. As such, habitat fragmentation is not anticipated since work would be 

conducted within the right-of-way. Additional station improvements proposed under this 

alternative would be located within existing building and track infrastructure and would not likely 

impact ecological resources.

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A would include construction of four miles of second track through urbanized areas 

of Manhattan (SRP-1, MPs 9 to 13), and 1.4 miles of new track extending under the Tappan Zee 

Bridge (SRP-2) for the Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking. There are several records of sensitive 

species and Essential Fish Habitat within a half-mile of the corridor centerline in the vicinity of 

these proposed work locations, primarily occurring in the Hudson River. Construction could affect 

aquatic species if construction work is conducted within or indirectly affects the Hudson River. 

Ten miles of new third track (SRP-3, MPs 53 to 63) would be installed within or adjacent to a bird 

conservation area and areas of known occurrences of significant natural communities and 

protected plant and wildlife populations. Improvements at the Poughkeepsie Yard/Storage Facility 

(ES-13, MPs 71 to 75.8) and rock slope stabilization north of the Poughkeepsie station (ES-04, five 

locations between MPs 105.3 to 130, one location at MP 119, and 4 locations at MPs 128.1-130) 

would include work in areas where there is a moderate to high potential for protected species and 

significant natural communities to occur within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. In addition, 

rock slope stabilization near MP 130 would include work near the Shodack Island bird conservation 

area. Work in the above-mentioned areas that may involve tree clearing or disturbance of 

terrestrial or aquatic habitats may impact nesting bird habitat, protected species or significant 

natural communities, and any work conducted over or directly adjacent to the Hudson River would 

have the potential to impact aquatic resources. However, work in these areas would occur within 

the existing right-of-way thereby minimizing the potential for ecological impacts. 

Alternative 90A would include the replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (ES-15) over the 

Hudson River. There are records of protected resources at this location, and work there would 

have the potential to impact EFH, protected aquatic species, or other aquatic habitat through 

Page 4-134 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

temporary or permanent direct habitat disturbance.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Track improvements along the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch would include 10 miles of 

third track between MPs 169 and 179 (EW-14a), and Amsterdam Station improvements along the 

west end of this segment (EIS-1, MP 177.6). Additionally, installation of a third track and access 

road at approximately MP 167 would pass through an area that is currently vegetated. There are 

no known populations of protected resources with a high or moderate potential for occurrence 

within a half-mile of the corridor centerline along this stretch of tracks. However, any vegetation 

removal would have the potential to impact terrestrial habitat, such as nesting birds. Updates to 

three control points (EW-05, MPs 175, 239 and 248) would not likely impact ecological resources 

because work would be performed in existing right-of-way thereby minimizing the potential for 

ecological impacts. 

Alternative 90A would include Syracuse Station track improvements (EIS-6, MPs 290 to 294), 

addition of a third track along 11 miles located largely west of the designated urban area around 

Rochester (EW-20, MPs 382 to 393), and third track improvements along 11 miles (EW-16, MPs 

373 to 382) west of the station. These are primarily urban areas and there is one known 

occurrence of a sensitive resource within a half-mile of the corridor centerline at the proposed 

work location. Therefore, impacts to this sensitive resource would be unlikely. 

Station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station (EIS-10, MPs 429 to 433) would involve 

potential disturbance to vegetated areas within the current station footprint. Although there are no 

known occurrences of protected plant, wildlife or habitats in these areas, this work could impact 

nesting birds through the removal of vegetation. Double track (EW-17, MPs QDN17 to QDN23.2) 

along the Niagara Branch and Niagara Falls Maintenance Facility and track improvements (EW-18 

and EIS-12, MPs 25 to 28) would not involve work outside of the existing right-of-way and 

therefore impacts to ecological resources would be unlikely.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Due to the increase in track construction outside of the right-of-way for Alternative 90B, habitat 

encroachment would be more likely to occur with Alternative 90B than for Alternative 90A. As 

with Alternative 90A, an increase in service trips would occur. There are also a higher number of 

protected resources with a moderate or high potential for occurrence within a half-mile of the areas 

where new track and roads are proposed, and therefore Alternative 90B would have a higher 

potential to impact protected species and habitats, compared to Alternative 90A. Additional station 

improvements proposed under this alternative would be located within existing building and track 

infrastructure and would not likely impact ecological resources.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-135

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than for Alternative 90A, is proposed, and 

there would be no potential for additional impacts to ecological resources in this area for 

Alternative 90B.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

In areas identified for a dedicated fourth track and possible access roads (MPs 170 to 179, 204 to 

216, 235 to 239, 301 to 309, and 375 to 383), Moss Island, a National Natural Landmark (NNL) and 

one record of a protected resource with a high potential for occurrence is located within a half-mile 

of the corridor centerline.

A dedicated third track is proposed between MP 159 in Schenectady County to MP 432 in Erie 

County. In addition to the resources identified in track segments involving work for a fourth track, 

there are approximately 63 species with a high or moderate potential to occur within a half-mile of 

the corridor centerline. Furthermore, Montezuma Marsh (a NNL and bird conservation area), and 

nine significant natural communities occur between MP 159 and MP 432. Work within these 

portions of the Empire Corridor could directly or indirectly impact these ecological resources 

through actions that could result in habitat conversion or habitat disturbance.

Areas proposed for road realignment or property acquisition at MP 192 would be within less than a 

half-mile of known occurrences of sensitive resources, and thus would have the potential to impact 

these resources through habitat disturbance. Other areas proposed for road realignment or 

property acquisition under this alternative would not be in the vicinity of sensitive resource 

occurrences, however any vegetation removal has the potential to impact habitat for wildlife such 

as birds. 

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Due to an increase in MAS and an even greater increase in track realignments outside of the rightof-way proposed with Alternative 110, impacts such as habitat encroachment would be more likely 

to occur than with Alternatives 90B. The total number of sensitive resources identified as 

potentially occurring within a half-mile of the proposed physical improvement areas for Alternative 

110 would be the same as for Alternative 90B. Alternative 110 would have a higher likelihood of 

impacts to ecological resources than Alternatives 90B due to the increase in work outside of the 

right-of-way and existing track bed. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than for Alternative 90A, is proposed, and 

there would be no potential for additional impacts to ecological resources in this area for 

Page 4-136 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 110.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

In areas identified for a dedicated fourth track under Alternative 110 (MPs 174 to 184, 218 to 229, 

235 to 239, 249 to 259, 310 to 320, and 388 to 399), there are two records of sensitive natural 

communities and five records of protected species with a moderate or high potential for occurrence 

within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. Within the stretch of tracks identified for a dedicated 

third track (MP 159 and MP 432) there are an additional 58 species with a high or moderate 

potential to occur within a half-mile of the corridor centerline. In addition, Moss Island (a NNL) and 

Montezuma Marsh (a NNL and bird conservation area), and seven significant natural communities 

occur within this stretch of tracks. Therefore, construction activities associated with the addition of 

third and fourth track that would result in vegetation clearing or habitat disturbance would have 

the potential to impact ecological resources.

Of the five stations proposed for upgrades, there is only one record of a sensitive resource within a 

half-mile of the proposed work areas at the Syracuse station. It would be unlikely that station 

improvements at this location would result in impacts to sensitive resources unless project designs 

extend beyond the existing developed lands. There would be 14 locations where realignment of 

adjoining roadways could result in impacts to ecological resources, but these locations would be 

better defined in a Tier 2 assessment.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Ecological resources could be impacted directly by new construction or improvements to existing 

infrastructure and habitat fragmentation or indirectly through increases in travel speeds and train 

frequency throughout the Alternative 125 corridor. Impacts would be more likely to occur than 

with Alternatives 90B, 110, or 90A alone. The total number of protected habitats and sensitive 

resources identified as having a high to moderate potential for occurrence within a half-mile of the 

proposed alignment for Alternative 125 is greater than the other alternatives.

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River. This work would have the potential to impact ecological resources such as aquatic species 

and Essential Fish Habitat in this portion of the Hudson River with construction of a new river 

bridge.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-137

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on a new alignment. 

Installation of the tracks proposed for the new alignment would have the potential to impact 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats. In addition to the ecological resources that may be impacted by 

implementation of the Base Alternative, Alternative 125 could directly or indirectly affect all of the 

bird conservation areas, NNLs, sensitive natural communities, and protected species identified in 

the “Existing Conditions” for the 125 Study Area. The impacts could be through habitat conversion 

and habitat fragmentation.

4.13.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

To the extent practicable, future planning and designs will incorporate avoidance and minimization 

of impacts to known ecological resources. Where avoidance and minimization are not practicable, 

mitigation for impacts to ecological resources can be achieved through a number of approaches. 

Strategies to offset impacts to both common and protected ecological resources may include:

• Utilization of construction timing windows to avoid disturbance to nesting birds or certain

seasonal processes;

• Implementation of construction Best Management Practices;

• Construction of safe wildlife crossings and fencing; or

• Preservation, restoration or rehabilitation of on- or off-site lands.

For any program element that would require an incidental take permit from a resource agency 

(described below), mitigation measures to offset any impacts or take must be developed in a 

mitigation plan. Program-wide and species- or habitat-specific mitigation strategies can be 

developed with the resource agencies through the permit review process, and mitigation activities 

can often be combined for multiple species.

4.13.6. Future Analysis

Tier 2 assessments will refine the impact assessment based on design and site-specific mapping and 

delineation of existing and required areas of potential impact. In most instances, any activity that 

proposes disturbance or “take” of a protected species or habitat is prohibited by the laws and 

regulations described in Section 4.13.1 above or would require consultation with resource agencies. 

Consultation may be required with the U.S.FWS under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species 

Act, with the NYSDEC through Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 9 (for plants) or 

Article 11 (for fish and wildlife), or with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under 

Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for potential 

impacts to EFH.

As part of the permitting process, a clearly-defined project description and an inventory of 

protected resources and their habitat that occur or have the potential to occur within the project 

boundaries must be compiled. If required, species surveys would be focused on areas where a 

potential for impact has been identified

Page 4-138 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

For NYSDOT actions involving state listed species, an assessment must first be conducted by 

NYSDOT to determine whether the action has the potential to result in “take” of the listed species. 

This determination is based on results of the resource inventories, whether a protected resource 

has been documented or has the potential to occur in the project area, and the specific elements of a 

proposed project. If the assessment shows that there may be or is likely to be a take as a result of 

the action, consultation with the NYSDEC must follow. The NYSDEC would review the project and 

establish whether an incidental take permit must be issued before commencing work. Issuance of 

an incidental take permit by the NYSDEC is contingent on development of an Endangered and 

Threatened Species Mitigation Plan. If no incidental take permit is required based on NYSDEC

consultation, this finding must be documented before the project can proceed.133

For NYSDOT actions involving federally-listed species, a project must undergo informal or formal 

consultation with the U.S.FWS or NMFS (for anadromous or marine species) through the federal 

agency acting as the lead agency for the project. To begin informal consultation, a site assessment 

of the project’s action area must be conducted to establish whether suitable habitat is present for 

listed species. If no suitable habitat is found, these findings must be submitted to the FRA for 

concurrence. If suitable habitat is found, an assessment of whether the action might have a direct, 

indirect or cumulative adverse effect on protected species must be completed by NYSDOT. If no 

adverse effect would occur, these findings must be submitted to the U.S.FWS or NMFS by the FHWA 

for concurrence.

If it is found that an adverse effect may occur, formal consultation must be initiated by the FRA with 

the U.S.FWS or NMFS. The U.S.FWS or NMFS must prepare a Biological Opinion, stating whether the 

project would put the continued existence of any listed species or EFH in jeopardy. If jeopardy is 

considered likely and unavoidable, the project must be subsequently exempted or it cannot 

proceed. If jeopardy is not considered likely or if it is avoidable, then the U.S.FWS or NMFS would 

issue an Incidental Take Statement, with any conditions of approval or mitigation measures, and 

the project may commence.

If an adverse effect may occur to Essential Fish Habitat protected under the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a written EFH Assessment must be prepared describing 

the effects of the project on EFH and identifying proposed mitigation measures. This EFH 

Assessment would be prepared and submitted to NMFS.

In addition to an analysis of potential impacts to protected resources, an analysis of impacts to 

common ecological resources would be required. Potential impacts such as habitat fragmentation, 

wildlife collisions, wildlife fatalities, habitat conversion or degradation, species aversion to the rail

corridor, and impacts on wildlife corridors must be addressed and quantified where applicable. If 

impacts are anticipated, mitigation measures to offset these impacts must be developed.

133/ NYSDOT 2010. The Environmental Manual. Section 4.4.9.3 Threatened and Endangered Species. Accessed March 2012. Available: 

<https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and-guidance/epm> 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-139

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

4.14. Critical Environmental Areas under the State Environmental 

Quality Review Act

4.14.1. Regulatory Context

Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) are designated for protection through the State Environmental 

Quality Review Act (SEQR) regulations (6 NYCRR 617.14(g)). Under the New York State 

Environmental Quality Act, state and local agencies may designate specific geographic areas within 

their boundaries as "Critical Environmental Areas" (CEAs). In order obtain this designation; the 

area must have one or more of the following exceptional or unique characteristics: 

• A benefit or threat to human health;

• A natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space, and areas of

important aesthetic or scenic quality);

• Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or

• An inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely

affected by any change.

Following designation, the potential impact of any action on the environmental characteristics of 

the CEA is a relevant area of environmental concern and must be evaluated in the determination of 

significance prepared pursuant to Section 617.7 of SEQR.

4.14.2. Methodology

The NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits was consulted regarding the presence and location 

of SEQR-designated Critical Areas within a half-mile of the corridor centerline (study area). 

Correspondence from the NYSDEC was received on May 2, 2011 regarding mapping of SEQR critical 

areas.134 Correspondence from the NYSDEC was received on January 12, 2012 regarding future 

updates to the CEAs, which will be published on the NYSDEC website in February 2012.135 In 

addition, the list of SEQR Critical Areas and maps available from the NYSDEC website was 

consulted.136

4.14.3. Existing Conditions

Within a half-mile of the corridor centerline for both the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas, there 

are three CEAs in Westchester County, three in Dutchess County, three in Monroe County and four 

in Erie County. Within the Empire Corridor 90/110 Study Area only, there is one CEA in 

134/ David Rebecca, NYSDEC, “Re: Empire Corridor High Speed Rail,” e-mail/personal communication with Karen Kays, Pinyon 

Environmental, Inc., May 2, 2011. 

135/ David Rebecca, NYSDEC, “Re: Empire Corridor High Speed Rail data set,” e-mail/personal communication with Rosie Wilson, Pinyon 

Environmental, Inc., January 12, 2011.

136/ NYSDEC. “Critical Environmental Areas,” website accessed June 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6184.html.> 

Page 4-140 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Schenectady County, and one in Onondaga County. These areas are described in Exhibit 4-26. 

Several of the Critical Environmental Areas overlap or coincide with protected publicly parklands in 

Dutchess and Westchester Counties. 

In Dutchess County, two of the CEAs overlap with the Margaret Norrie State Park in Dutchess 

County (Indian Kill CEA) and NYSDEC lands for the Crum Creek Waterway Access (Hogback Hill). 

In Westchester County, the Croton Point Park is included in both the Croton Point Park CEA and the 

“County and State Park Lands” CEA, which also includes Montrose Point State Forest, Oscawana 

County Park, Rockwood Hall State Park (part of the adjoining Rockefeller State Park Preserve),

Rockefeller State Park Preserve itself, and Lenoir Preserve County Park. The Hudson River CEA 

encompasses much of the waterfront areas along the Hudson River in Westchester County. Public 

parks and recreation areas are addressed in Section 4.16. 

Exhibit 4-26—Critical Environmental Areas Designated under SEQR in half-mile Study Area

County Critical Environmental Area Designation 

Date Designating Agency Reason

Erie

Freshwater Wetlands within Town 9-29-79 None given

Reinstein Woods – 269 acre Nature 

Preserve with 400’ wide peripheral 

buffer

7-27-88 None Given

John Stiglmeier 9-27-91 Preserve wildlife and 

green area

Cayuga Creek to 100 year floodplain 9-27-91 Preserve wildlife and 

green area

Monroe

Land within 100 feet of Genesee 

River Barge Canal, Lake Ontario or 

River Gorge (except in 

manufacturing industrial zone) 3-14-86 City of Rochester None given.

Cobbs Hill

Three smaller CEAs are within the 

study area *

Onondaga Portions of Nine-Mile Creek within 

Town1 9-4-96 Town of Camillus None given.

Schenectady Aquifer Area Overlay Zone1 4-5-85 Town of Rotterdam

Conserve, improve, 

protect natural 

resources.

Dutchess

Hogback Hill

6-7-09 Town of Hyde Park

Sensitivity to change 

& habitat and species 

protection.

Indian Kill

Vanderburgh Cove

Westchester

Croton Point Park

1-31-90 County of 

Westchester

Exceptional or unique 

character. County and State Park Lands

Hudson River

*the CEAs in Monroe County also include areas zoned as “open space,” lands with slopes greater than 15 percent, heavily wooded land,

and drainage systems designated on official street map.

1 CEA located only in Empire Corridor 90/110 study area.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-141

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

The CEAs in Monroe County also include areas zoned as “open space,” lands with slopes greater 

than 15 percent, heavily wooded land, and drainage systems designated on official street map.

4.14.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below identify elements of each alternative that would have the potential to impact the 

environmental characteristics of Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) designated under the New 

York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. This preliminary assessment of potential 

impacts to CEAs is based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and will be further refined in Tier 2 as the 

project development process advances. This assessment focuses on work proposed under each 

alternative that would occur in the vicinity of a designated CEA; work proposed elsewhere is not 

addressed. There are total of 17 CEAs in the vicinity of the proposed program alternatives: three in 

Westchester County, three in Dutchess County, one in Schenectady County, one in Onondaga 

County, five in Monroe County, and four in Erie County. 

The type and degree of potential impacts to CEAs depends on the relationship between the project 

designs and the specific resources that are protected under each CEA designation. In many 

instances, the reason for CEA designation and/or the physical boundaries of CEAs are not clearly 

defined. However, most of the CEAs whose designation and boundaries are clearly defined are 

separated from the rail corridor by urban lands and would not likely be impacted by proposed 

work. For those CEAs whose designation or boundaries were not readily available under this Tier 1 

assessment, further investigation would be necessary to assess impacts as part of Tier 2 

evaluations.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative will 

maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in track 

and station infrastructure.

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative will include signal and grade crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. The Town of Hyde Park has designated three CEAs that will be located in the vicinity of 

these proposed improvements in Dutchess County. The “Hogback Hill,” “Indian Kill,” and 

“Vanderburgh Cove” CEAs were each designated based on their “sensitivity to change and habitat 

and species protection." The “Hogback Hill” CEA is set back more than 1,000 feet from the rail 

right-of-way, and impacts will not be anticipated. At approximately MP 83 and MP 85 in Dutchess 

County, the existing rail corridor passes through the “Indian Kill” and “Vanderburgh Cove” CEAs, 

respectively. However, direct impacts will be unlikely since signal work will primarily be within the 

existing right-of-way and will be unlikely to affect the habitat of these CEAs. 

Page 4-142 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations, as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station. The “Aquifer Overlay 

Zone” CEA is located in Schenectady County, and was designated by the Town of Rotterdam as a 

CEA “to conserve, improve, and protect natural resources.” This CEA will be in close proximity to, 

but does not overlap, the proposed second track or Schenectady Station work areas. The Base 

Alternative work will not likely impact this “Aquifer Overlay Zone” CEA as the proposed work will 

be contained in the existing right-of-way and the Schenectady Station footprint and will be unlikely 

to alter the designated qualities of the CEA.

The Base Alternative will also include track configuration and signal improvements in and around 

the City of Syracuse (MPs 287 to 291) and Rochester Station track and platform improvements 

(MPs 368 to 373). Improvements in and around the City of Syracuse will not be located within or 

adjacent to a designated CEA. In Monroe County, the City of Rochester has several designated CEAs 

that are located in the vicinity of the proposed improvements. The “Cobbs Hill” CEA is located 

several thousand feet to the south of the rail right-of-way and separated from the corridor by urban 

lands. In addition, proposed improvements under the Base Alternative will not occur in the vicinity 

of areas meeting the City of Rochester CEA definition of “Areas zoned ‘open space.’” 

Work within the Base Alternative will occur in the vicinity of two locations that meet the definition 

of the “Land within 100 feet of the Genesee River Barge Canal, Lake Ontario or River Gorge except 

in manufacturing industrial zone” CEA in the City of Rochester. In addition, work could occur in 

“Lands with slopes greater than 15 percent,” “Heavily wooded land,” and “Drainage systems 

designated on official street map” designated CEAs; however, the physical boundaries and precise 

locations are not known for these CEAs. Work proposed in the above-mentioned locations will 

occur within the existing rail right-of-way and will involve the installation of a new third track and 

upgrades to signal systems. The reasons for designating these lands as CEAs are unknown; 

however, direct impacts will be unlikely at these locations since work will be contained within the 

right-of-way.

Alternative 90A

In addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described, Alternative 

90A would provide increased frequency of service as well as improved travel times, with a program 

of 20 improvements in track, station, and signalization within Empire Corridor South and Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch. Alternative 90A also includes an increase in trip frequency along 

the entire corridor, however, this increase is not expected to affect the CEAs along the corridor. 

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A would include construction of 1.4 miles of new track, extending under the Tappan 

Zee Bridge, for the Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking and signal improvements proposed along 

43 miles (MPs 32.8 and 75.8). Both of these projects would occur in the vicinity of the “Hudson 

River” CEA, designated to extend along the entire length of the Hudson River within Westchester 

County, from approximately MP 14 to MP 45. Additionally, the “County and State Park Lands” CEA 

includes lands that intersect or run adjacent to the rail right-of-way at MP 17 (Untermyer Park), MP 

26 (Kingsland Point County Park and Devries Park), MP 27 (Peabody Field), MP 28 (Rockwood Hall 

State Park) and MP 37 (Oscawana County Park), although the only changes at most these locations 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-143

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

would be the additional train trips. The “Croton Point Park” CEA intersects the rail right-of-way at 

approximately MP 33. All of the CEAs in the vicinity of the proposed program in Westchester 

County were designated by Westchester County based on their “exceptional or unique character.” 

Direct impacts would not be anticipated to the “Hudson River” and “County and State Park Lands” 

CEAs since work would occur primarily within the existing right-of-way and would only extend 

north from MP 33, and would be unlikely to change the unique character of these CEAs. Along this 

section, 10 miles of new third track (MPs 53 to 63) and improvements at the Poughkeepsie 

Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 75.8) will not affect CEAs.

North of Poughkeepsie and south of Albany-Rensselaer Station (MPs 75.8 to 140), proposed 

improvements in close proximity to CEAs include rock slope stabilization (MPs 105 to 130) and 

three new control points (CP 82, CP 99, and CP 136). As mentioned in the Base Alternative, the 

“Indian Kill” and “Vanderburgh Cove” CEAs (MPs 83 and 85) in Dutchess County were each 

designated based on their “sensitivity to change and habitat and species protection,” and these 

CEAs overlap work for Alternative 90A. Since work will be confined to the right-of-way, no changes 

to these CEAs are anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

As mentioned in the Base Alternative, the “Aquifer Overlay Zone” CEA in Schenectady County is 

designated “to conserve, improve, and protect natural resources.” There would be no proposed 

construction work for Alternative 90A in this CEA.

With Alternative 90A, track improvements would include approximately 10 miles of third track 

between MPs 169 and 178.5, and Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this 

segment. Additionally, upgrades to interlockings and automatic block signals at three control 

points (CP 175, CP 239, and CP 248) are proposed. These improvements would not occur in the 

vicinity of or impact CEA areas. 

Alternative 90A would include Syracuse Station track improvements (MPs 290 to 294), third track 

improvements along 11 miles (MPs 373 to 382) west of the Rochester Station, and the addition of a 

third track along 11 miles located largely west of the City of Rochester (MPs 382 to 393). 

In Onondaga County, a CEA is designated by the Town of Camillus as “Portions of Nine Mile Creek” 

at approximately MP 297. There is no reason given for the designation of this CEA. There would be 

no proposed construction work for Alternative 90A in this CEA, and, no reason is known for the 

CEA designation.

As mentioned in the Base Alternative, there are several designated CEAs that are located in the 

vicinity of proposed improvements and increased train frequency in Monroe County: “Land within 

100 feet of the Genesee River Barge Canal, Lake Ontario or River Gorge except in manufacturing 

industrial zone,” “Lands with slopes greater than 15 percent,” “Heavily wooded land,” and 

“Drainage systems designated on official street map.” In addition, proposed improvements under 

Alternative 90A would occur in the vicinity of an area meeting the City of Rochester CEA definition 

of “Areas zoned ‘open space’” at the western city limit. Proposed construction work for Alternative 

90A (MPs 373 to 393) would be within the existing right-of-way and would be unlikely to directly 

impact these CEAs. At this time, no reason is known for the CEA designations. 

Station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 429.5 to 432.5) would occur in the 

Page 4-144 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

general vicinity of three CEAs designated by the Town of Cheektowaga. These CEAs are 

“Freshwater Wetlands within Town,” “Reinstein Woods,” and “John Stiglmeier Park,” CEAs. “John 

Stiglmeier Park” is designated to “preserve wildlife and green areas,” but there is no reason given 

for the designation of the other two CEAs in the county. All three of the Town of Cheektowaga CEAs 

are no closer than 3,000 feet from the rail right-of-way at MP 433 and are separated from the 

railroad by urban lands. Although some work outside of the existing right-of-way at MP 433, these 

CEAs would not likely be impacted due to their distance from the proposed work. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work is proposed within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for 

Alternative 90A, and additional CEA impacts would not be anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Third and fourth track improvements for Alternative 90B would start at MP 160 in the City of 

Schenectady and would extend west to MP 430, east of Buffalo. Alternative 90B would also include 

an increase in trip frequency along the entire Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (from four 

trains to eight trains daily), and five station improvements. Third and fourth track improvements 

and increased train frequency would occur in the vicinity of the same CEAs in Schenectady, 

Onondaga, Monroe and Erie Counties as mentioned in Alternative 90A. The majority of these CEAs 

would not cross the proposed improvements; however, the program area would pass directly 

through “Portions of Nine Mile Creek” and “Land within 100 feet of the Genesee River Barge Canal, 

Lake Ontario or River Gorge except in manufacturing industrial zone”. Work in these areas would 

occur within the existing right-of-way and would be unlikely to impact these CEAs. 

Areas where third or fourth track would be located outside the existing right-of-way would not be 

located in designated CEAs. Therefore, no additional impacts to CEAs, other than described in 

Alternative 90A, within Alternative 90B Empire Corridor West/Niagara branch, would be 

anticipated from work that would occur within or outside of the existing right-of-way.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-145

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Empire Corridor South

No additional work is proposed within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for 

Alternative 90A, and additional CEA impacts would not be anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Third and fourth track improvements for Alternative 110 would start at MP 160 in the City of 

Schenectady and would extend west to MP 430, east of Buffalo. Alternative 110 would also include 

an increase in trip frequency along the entire Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (from four 

trains to eight trains daily), and five station improvements. Third and fourth track improvements 

and increased train frequency would occur in the vicinity of the same CEAs in Schenectady, 

Onondaga, Monroe and Erie Counties as mentioned in Alternative 90B. The majority of these CEAs 

would not cross the proposed improvements; however, the program area would pass directly 

through “Portions of Nine Mile Creek” and “Land within 100 feet of the Genesee River Barge Canal, 

Lake Ontario or River Gorge except in manufacturing industrial zone”. Work in these areas would 

occur within the existing right-of-way and would be unlikely to impact these CEAs.

 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work is proposed within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for the 

Alternative 90A, and additional CEA impacts would not be anticipated.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The new Alternative 125 track alignment would fall within the vicinity of the Town of Rotterdam’s 

“Aquifer Area Overlay Zone” CEA. However, the CEA and proposed track alignment would be 

approximately a half-mile away from each other and would be separated by urban lands. No 

impacts to this CEA would be anticipated. All portions of the Alternative 125 track alignment that 

would not overlap with Alternatives 90A, 90B and 110 would not be in the vicinity of any 

designated CEA, and therefore no additional impacts would be anticipated. 

4.14.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During Tier 2, refinements in design and mapping will be performed and the project development 

will incorporate avoidance and minimization of CEA impacts to the extent practicable. NYSDOT 

would need to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for any potential 

impacts to environmental characteristics of a CEA. 

Page 4-146 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Coordination with the designating agencies of the CEAs and the NYSDEC would confirm boundaries 

and reasons for designation. If avoidance is not possible, measures to minimize or reduce the 

impacts should be evaluated. The mitigation that is appropriate for each CEA affected may depend 

on the reason for designation, e.g., a site that is designated for avoidance as a threat as an inactive 

hazardous waste site might involve drainage improvements and the mitigation may be markedly 

different from an ecologically significant site. Potential CEA mitigation measures that can be 

developed in coordination with the state agencies and landowners can include avoidance and 

minimization in the design phase, installation of wildlife crossings, and implementation of 

construction Best Management Practices. Improving or optimizing area drainage may also avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts to CEAs.

4.14.6. Future Analysis

Tier 2 assessments will refine the impact assessment based on design and site-specific mapping and 

delineation of existing and required work areas. If impacts to the designated environmental 

characteristics of CEAs will be anticipated in Tier 2, alternative actions, locations, and designs will 

need to be further explored as part of Tier 2 design. 

For CEAs in, or substantially contiguous to, proposed work, outreach to the agency or agencies that 

made the CEA designation may be performed, as appropriate, to understand why the CEA was 

designated and its characteristics. An understanding of why an area became a CEA will facilitate a 

determination of whether the proposed action will have a significant adverse environmental 

impact. For instance, a CEA designated because of a threat would be something that the 

municipality or agency would want the public to be aware of so that harm to public health or safety 

or inappropriate use of the affected area could be avoided. Examples might be:

• An inactive hazardous waste site

• A steep slope area with the potential for landslides 

• A high river bank or cliff area with dangerously high erosion potential or 

• An area that is often prone to dangerous flash floods.

In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the potential impact of any Type I 

or Unlisted Action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA is a relevant area of 

environmental concern and must be evaluated in the determination of significance prepared 

pursuant to Section 617.7 of SEQR. This determination would be made as part of the Tier 2 

NEPA/SEQR documentation. 

4.15. Historic and Cultural Resources

4.15.1. Regulatory Context

This evaluation of historic resources has been performed in accordance with NEPA and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and associated 

implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800. 

Section 106 of NHPA mandates that federal agencies consider the effect of their actions on historic 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-147

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

properties, defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NR) [or the State Register of 

Historic Places (SR)]; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to such a 

district, site, building, structure, or object.” The NHPA also includes specific guidelines for the 

treatment of National Historic Landmarks (NHLs). NHLs are properties of national significance 

designated by the United States Department of Interior because they possess exceptional historic 

value. The NHPA mandates additional protection of NHLs by requiring that federal agencies 

undertake planning and actions as necessary to minimize harm when considering undertakings 

that may directly and adversely affect NHLs.

Historic properties are also protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966. Section 4(f) prohibits actions by the Secretary of Transportation that require “use” of a 

historic property that is listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, unless a 

determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and 

all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the 4(f) property. If a use of a 

Section 4(f) park or recreation property is determined to occur, a Section 4(f) Evaluation will be 

prepared and circulated as part of Tier 2 environmental documentation.

The New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (SHPA) requires that state agencies consider 

the effect of their actions on properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the New York 

State Register of Historic Places. Separate review under the SHPA is not required when NHPA 

applies.

In the State of New York a “town” or “city” is the major division of each county, excluding the five 

counties or “boroughs” that comprise New York City. The cities/towns, as well as the villages, 

located in the program’s areas of potential effect (APE) (see description below under Methodology) 

for historic and cultural resources are included in Exhibit G-15 in Appendix G.

4.15.2. Methodology

Tiered Approach and Programmatic Agreement

As previously noted, the Empire Corridor Program sponsors (FRA and NYSDOT) are addressing 

consideration of potential environmental impacts of the program in accordance with the 

requirements of NEPA and NHPA using a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28. A 

phased process also may be used for Section 106 compliance where alternatives under 

consideration consist of corridors or large land areas, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) and 

800.5(a)(3). Determinations of eligibility and effect may be deferred to Tier 2 of the process under 

the terms of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b). This 

Tier 1 EIS addresses broad corridor-level issues and proposals of the program and identifies the 

likely presence of historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the five alternatives, 

as part of the initial phase of the tiered process. Program sponsors will prepare site-specific 

environmental documentation for component projects in subsequent phases or tiers of the program 

in accordance with NEPA and NHPA. The PA, addressed later in this section, provides a mechanism 

and framework for meeting NHPA compliance obligations in the Tier 2 phase of the program. 

Page 4-148 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Area of Potential Effect

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of their 

actions on historic properties. An adverse effect under Section 106 is defined in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1),

and 

[I]s found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the 

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the 

National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, 

including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of 

the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, 

be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. 

A required step in the Section 106 process is determining the APE, which is defined as “the 

geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations 

in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist.”(36 CFR 800.16[d]). The APE 

is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking. 

Potential adverse effects on historic architectural resources can include both direct physical 

effects—demolition, alteration, or damage from construction—and indirect effects, such as the 

introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that may alter the characteristics of the 

historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would 

diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features. Archaeological resources are 

potentially affected by direct impacts from construction activity resulting in disturbance to the 

ground such as excavation, grading, pile-driving, cutting and filling, and staging. 

The APE for each of the alternatives for the Empire Corridor Program has been delineated to 

indicate the area in which the proposed program could cause potential direct effects and the area in 

which the proposed program could cause indirect effects. Because the program is currently in the 

first phase of the tiered environmental review process and the proposed program alternatives are 

at an early design stage, the APEs presented in this Tier 1 EIS for each alternative are reasonable 

approximations of the areas in which direct and indirect effects could occur as a result of the broad 

categories of construction activities proposed as part of each alternative. The categories of 

construction activities include construction of track, modification of track and related 

infrastructure, service road construction or realignment, and station construction or alteration. As 

described in the PA (see Appendix H), if modifications to the APEs for component projects are 

required as part of the Tier 2 analysis, FRA and NYSDOT would alter the APE as appropriate in 

consultation with consulting federally recognized tribes and any consulting parties. 

The purpose of developing a conceptual “alignment” for Alternative 125 in the Tier 1 EIS is to 

provide a basis for comparison of corridor-level performance, cost, and the impact potential of a 

new corridor alternative versus existing corridor alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110). 

The intended purpose of this Tier 1 EIS is to make broad-corridor level decisions with regard to 

parameters such as operating speed/travel times, service frequency, and infrastructure 

requirements. The purpose of the Tier 1 EIS does not include studying alternative alignments to 

achieve the 125 miles per hour speed, nor does it include selecting a specific alignment. All 

alternatives except Alternative 125 would follow the existing Empire Corridor alignment along both 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-149

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

the Empire Corridor South and Empire Corridor West. To achieve the higher speed of Alternative 

125, much of this alternative along the Empire Corridor West would be on a new corridor outside of 

the existing Empire Corridor alignment. Because portions of Alternative 125 would not be located 

within the existing rail corridor, one representative “alignment” was developed for Alternative 125 

at a conceptual level. It is intended to be one of several possible alignments that could be 

developed and studied in the future if Alternative 125 is the selected alternative at the conclusion of 

this Tier 1 environmental review process. 

Direct APE

Direct effects may include physical damage or destruction of a resource or its setting. The portion 

of the APE for the program alternatives in which there is the potential for the proposed program to 

cause direct effects includes all locations that could be subject to direct ground-disturbing activities.

For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, the APE for potential direct effects has been delineated to extend 

100 feet in both directions from the centerline of the existing railroad tracks to encompass all 

locations where project construction activities could occur. Where the centerlines of the highspeed alternative (90 mile per hour [mph], 110 mph, and 125 Alternatives) alignments would differ 

from the existing centerline, the direct APE extends 100 feet in both directions from the centerline 

of those alignments. It should be noted that areas where the centerlines of the 90 mph and 110 

mph alternatives differ from that of the existing alignment are limited, and the alignments never 

diverge by more than approximately 150 feet. As described above, an inventory of all previouslyidentified resources within the direct APE has been compiled and is presented below.

Indirect APE

Potential indirect effects include isolation of a property from its surrounding environment, or the 

introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric (e.g., pollutants) elements that are out of character 

with a property or that alter its historic setting and context. The APE for potential indirect effects 

was developed to encompass potential indirect effects that could be reasonably foreseen at the Tier 

1 level resulting from the proposed project, such as construction of or modifications to track and 

related infrastructure, service roads, and stations. 

For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, the APE for indirect effects has been delineated to extend 600 

feet in both directions from the centerline of the existing railroad tracks. As in the direct APE, 

where the centerline of the high-speed (90 mph, 110 mph, and 125 mph APEs) alignments would 

differ from the existing centerline, the indirect APE extends 600 feet in both directions from the 

centerline of those alignments. As stated above, it should be noted that areas where the centerlines 

of the 90 mph and 110 mph APEs differ from that of the existing alignment are limited and the 

alignments never diverge by more than approximately 150 feet. The 600-foot APE was developed 

in consultation with SHPO and federally recognized tribes to encompass potential indirect effects 

that could be reasonably foreseen at the Tier 1 level resulting from construction activities 

associated with the proposed program, as described above. It should be noted that Alternative 125 is 

the only alternative that would incorporate overhead catenary systems, which could be visible from longer 

distances in some areas. If Alternative 125 is advanced for further study at the Tier 2 level, the APE 

would be reassessed and expanded if necessary to adequately consider the potential for indirect effects. 137 

137/ Although FTA noise standards set a standard screening distance of 750' (unobstructed) and (375' obstructed) for noise analyses, 

preliminary noise analyses completed as part of this Tier 1 DEIS indicate that the area in which there is the potential for the proposed 

Page 4-150 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

As described above, an inventory of all architectural resources within the indirect APE has been 

compiled and is presented in Appendix G.

Inventory of Archaeological Sites and Architectural Resources

When the Section 106 identification and evaluation process is being conducted in a phased manner, 

as described in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), the final identification and evaluation of historic properties 

may be deferred to future stages of the program if the protocol for the process is established in a PA 

or Memorandum of Agreement. In accordance with this guidance, this Tier 1 EIS focuses on 

identifying the “likely presence” of historic properties in the APE for each alternative by identifying 

previously designated architectural resources and previously identified archaeological sites (36 

CFR 800.4[b][2]). Based on the files of the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

the New York State Museum (NYSM), program sponsors compiled an inventory of all architectural 

resources, including buildings, sites, objects, and structures, and previously-identified 

archaeological sites in the direct and indirect APEs for the 90/110 Alternative and the 125 

Alternative (see Chapter 3, “Alternatives” for a detailed description of each alternative). In addition 

to SHPO and NYSM sites, the Oneida Nation, a federally recognized tribe, provided information on 

archaeological sites known to the Oneida Nation, as described below under “Tribal Coordination 

and consulting parties.” The sites identified by the Oneida Nation, located in Oneida and Madison 

Counties, have been added to the project mapping and inventories of known archaeological sites. 

Consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), once the previously-identified archaeological sites and 

architectural resources within the APEs for each alternative were identified, the potential effects of 

the program on those sites and resources were assessed. As described above, effects on 

architectural resources can be either direct or indirect. Effects on archaeological sites are direct 

only. Illustrative program elements that could result in potential indirect effects include changes to 

the context or setting of a historic property due to the construction of a permanent feature, such as 

new or reconfigured railroad infrastructure, or demolition. In addition, Section 106 requires 

consideration of reasonably foreseeable effects that may occur later in time, be further removed in 

distance, or be cumulative. 

Potential architectural resources (architectural resources that appear to meet the State/National 

Register eligibility criteria, but which have not been previously evaluated) within the APEs have not 

been identified as part of this Tier 1 document. As described in the Draft PA (Appendix H), 

identification of potential, but not previously identified by the SHPO or NYSM, architectural 

resources in the APEs would be undertaken as part of the Tier 2 analysis for this program.

No detailed archaeological documentary studies or archaeological field investigations (Phase I 

archaeological studies) have been prepared as part of the Tier 1 analysis to determine the presence 

of archaeological sites in the direct APE. As described above, previously-identified archaeological 

sites have been mapped and inventoried to serve as a preliminary indicator of potential 

archaeological sensitivity. As described in the Draft PA, in order to identify archaeological 

resources that could be affected by the program, archaeological documentary studies and field 

program alternatives (with the exception of Alternative 125) to result in noise impacts is substantially smaller than the areas delineated 

as the APEs for direct and indirect effects. In the case of Alternative 125, the potential for noise impacts is expected to vary by location. If 

Alternative 125 is advanced for analysis at the Tier 2 level, the adequacy of the indirect APE to account for potential effects due to noise 

and other factors would be reassessed and the APE would be expanded where necessary. Procedures for delineating APEs for project 

components advanced to the Tier 2 level are described in detail in the Draft Programmatic Agreement.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-151

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

investigations (as appropriate) will be carried out as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

Tribal Coordination and Consulting Parties

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the lead federal agency, FRA, in consultation with NYSDOT and 

SHPO, identified federally recognized tribal nations for outreach under Section 106 of NHPA. The 

tribal nations were identified on the basis of previously identified geographic areas of interest for 

Section 106 consultation commonly used by NYSDOT and SHPO. Tribal status and contact 

information on file with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs was also consulted as part of the 

identification process. On May 3, 2011, FRA sent letters to the following federally recognized tribal 

nations inviting them to participate in Section 106 consultation: Cayuga Nation, Seneca Nation of 

Indians; Tonawanda Seneca Nation; Onondaga Nation; Oneida Indian Nation; Tuscarora Indian 

Nation; Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of the Mohican Nation; Delaware Nation; the 

Shinnecock Nation; St. Regis Mohawk Tribe; and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma. In addition, 

FRA sent letters to the non-federally-recognized Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs and the New 

York State-recognized Unkechaug Nation. Replies were received from the Mohican Nation, the 

Oneida Nation, and the Seneca Nation. All of these tribal nations expressed their interest in the 

program and their desire to participate in consultation on the program in accordance with Section 

106 of NHPA.

On May 4, 2012, NYSDOT invited all of the federally-recognized tribes listed above (and one 

additional federally-recognized tribe: the Delaware Tribe of Indians) to an information-gathering 

meeting in Rochester, NY, on May 30, 2012. At the meeting, the program sponsors presented an 

overview of the program, the proposed Section 106 methodology and the preliminary program 

APE, and took comments from the tribal nations. 

At the request of several of the tribes that participated in the May 30, 2012 meeting, maps of the 

alternative alignments showing the approximate locations of previously identified archaeological 

sites were sent to the tribal nations. 

On November 21, 2012, NYSDOT on behalf of FRA sent letters to each of the tribal nations and 

SHPO describing and illustrating the boundaries of the proposed APE for their review and 

comment. In a letter to FRA and NYSDOT dated December 14, 2012, the Oneida Nation provided 

comments on the proposed program and requested a meeting to discuss the proposed program. In 

a letter dated February 1, 2013, NYSDOT provided clarification regarding points of concern raised 

in the Oneida Nation comments. The Oneida Nation replied to NYSDOT in a letter dated February 

11, 2013, expressing their satisfaction with the response. In a separate letter dated February 19, 

2013, FRA responded to the Oneida Nation’s initial letter. FRA also arranged a meeting with the 

Oneida Nation on April 18, 2013 that was attended by representatives of NYSDOT. At this meeting, 

representatives of the Oneida Nation provided information regarding the approximate locations of 

five archaeological sites in the program alternative APEs that are known to the Oneida Nation and 

are considered distinct from the archaeological sites on file at NYSM and SHPO. FRA and NYSDOT 

agreed to add this information to program mapping and analysis with the understanding that all 

appropriate measures would be taken to protect the confidentiality of the information. 

In addition to consultation with federally-recognized tribes, FRA and NYSDOT have engaged in a 

parallel process of coordination with consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(3) 

through (5) and 800.3(f). Potential consulting parties for the Tier 1 process were identified by FRA 

and NYSDOT in consultation with SHPO based on the parties demonstrated interest in broad, 

Page 4-152 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

corridor-wide, or regional-level aspects of the proposed undertaking. The list of potential 

consulting parties include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO, the Mohawk Nation 

Council of Chiefs, the Unkechaug Nation, the Preservation League of New York State, the Hudson 

River Valley Greenway, the Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, Preservation Buffalo Niagara, the 

Landmark Society of Western New York, and the Preservation Association of Western New York. A 

total of three parties responded expressing interest in participating as consulting parties: the 

Preservation League of New York State; the National Park Service Erie Canal National Heritage 

Corridor; and Preservation Buffalo Niagara. FRA subsequently approved the consulting party 

status of these three entities. 

On May 2, 2013, FRA and NYSDOT held a meeting to provide project information to the consulting 

parties and give them an opportunity to provide comments. Representatives from the Preservation 

League of New York State and the Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor attended. Also on May 2, 

2013, the team met with SHPO to discuss the Draft Programmatic Agreement. In June 2013, SHPO 

provided a letter of concurrence on the APE maps and methodologies and provided comment on 

the Draft Programmatic Agreement. 

The Programmatic Agreement (included as Appendix H) addresses the process by which FRA and 

NYSDOT intend to comply with Section 106 for undertakings occurring on tribal lands or where 

adverse effects to historic properties of a religious or cultural significance to a tribe occur off tribal 

land. On July 26 2013, the Draft Programmatic Agreement was transmitted to the federally 

recognized tribes and consulting parties for review and comment. The deadline for comment was 

listed as August 27, 2013. In a letter dated September 20, 2013, the Preservation League of New 

York State provided comments. In a letter dated August 13, 2013, FRA received a letter from the 

Oneida Indian Nation requesting a 30-day extension to provide comments on the Draft

Programmatic Agreement. This was granted by the FRA. In advance of the extended deadline for 

comments, a teleconference meeting was held on September 17, 2013 with FRA, NYSDOT, and the 

Oneida Indian Nation. As a result of this meeting, FRA revised the Draft Programmatic Agreement 

and transmitted it to the Oneida Indian Nation on September 26, 2013. FRA coordinated with 

Oneida Nation in developing the Draft PA, included in Appendix H.

Public Outreach

Public Outreach is being undertaken in accordance with NEPA, NHPA, and other applicable 

legislation and as described in the Public Involvement Plan and Agency Coordination Document for 

this program (draft prepared by FRA and NYSDOT, September 2010).138

4.15.3. Existing Conditions

Historic Context

It is beyond the scope of this Tier 1 analysis to present a thorough and comprehensive history of 

the geology, precontact period, and historic period in New York State. However, as described in 36 

CFR 800.4(b)(2) and 800.5(a)(3), where alternatives consist of large corridors of land and a phased 

approach to resource identification and evaluation is being taken, the process should assess the 

138/ Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751-Home/S93751--

Repository/ECHSR_Public_Involvement_Plan_Draft_20110131.pdf

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-153

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

likely presence of historic properties based on background research and consultation. Information 

collected as part of Tier 1 analysis may be used to evaluate the significance of historic properties 

identified in later phases of the program. Therefore, a brief overview of precontact period 

conditions and relevant historic period themes, in particular transportation networks pertinent to 

the program corridor vicinity, are presented below to provide a basic background for the “Existing 

Conditions” presented later in this chapter and to identify broad topics for further research as part 

of the Tier 2 analysis. 

Precontact Period

For the purposes of this report, the term “precontact” is used to describe the period prior to the use 

of formal written records. In the western hemisphere, the precontact period also refers to the time 

before European exploration and settlement of the New World. Archaeologists and historians gain 

their knowledge and understanding of precontact Native Americans in New York State from 

ethnographic reports, artifact collections, archaeological investigations, and oral tradition. Artifacts 

dating to the precontact period potentially found from ground disturbance as a result of the 

proposed program could include the remains of milling equipment, stone axes, adzes, arrowheads, 

and clay pottery vessels. Appendix G.11.1 contains a detailed historic context and description of the 

precontact periods.

Historic Period

The earliest transportation networks in the State of New York consisted of waterways and Native 

American trails. The Hudson River was a natural highway for the region, and in the 1620s the 

Dutch built Fort Orange at the mouth of its principal tributary, the Mohawk River. Trading posts 

were defined between these two points. Canals and railroads dominated transportation 

development in the first half of the 19th century and were an important means of getting goods to 

market and a major factor in the value of land in different parts of the state. The Erie Canal, 

completed in 1825, spurred the westward migration of American settlers, opened the only trade 

route west of the Appalachians, and secured New York as the preeminent commercial city in the 

United States.139 As a result of the increase in trade and traffic, the cities of Albany, Syracuse, 

Rochester, and Buffalo were formed. During the same period, the first railroad company in New 

York State, the Mohawk and Hudson, began operation between Albany and Schenectady in 1831.140 

The success of this railroad sparked a rail boom. Money flowed into lines that linked other Erie 

Canal towns, and within a decade through service was available from Albany to Buffalo.141 During 

the Civil War, the Mississippi River was closed to commercial traffic. As a result, passengers and 

freight increased on established east-west railroads, such as the Erie and New York Central. The 

Erie Railroad became the first through line to the Midwest and Great Lakes in 1861, with financial 

control of lines to Buffalo and Chicago.142 

139/ New York State Canal Corporation. Unlock the Legend of The New York State Canal System.” Pamphlet. 1999.

140/ Ellis, Edward Robb. The Epic of New York City. New York: Old Town Books. 1966, 259.

141/ Burrows, Edwin G. and Mike Wallace. Gotham, A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999, 564.

142/ A.G. Lichtenstein & Associates, Inc. “New Jersey Historic Bridge Survey.” 1994, 26.

Page 4-154 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Archaeology

As described above, information concerning the location and character of previously-identified 

archaeological sites in the direct APEs was collected through a review of the site files of SHPO and 

NYSM. Additional information regarding archaeological sites in Oneida and Madison Counties was 

provided by the Oneida Nation. Exhibit G-10 of Appendix G identifies the number and type of sites 

in each county in the direct APEs for the 90/110 Alternative and the 125 Alternative. 

90/110 Alternative APE 

A total of 166 previously-identified archaeological sites have been identified within the direct APE 

for the 90/110 Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara 

Branch. Of these sites, 47 are SHPO archaeological sites,117 are NYSM sites (13 point sites and 104 

polygon sites143), and two are sites identified by the Oneida Nation (Sites 1 and 2). There are a total 

of 36 burial/habitation sites.

125 Alternative APE

A total of 126 previously-identified archaeological sites have been identified within the direct APE 

for the 125 Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. 

Of these, 27 are SHPO archaeological sites, 96 are NYSM sites (8 point sites and 88 polygon sites), 

and three are sites identified by the Oneida Nation (Sites 3 through 5). There are a total of 27 

burial/habitation sites.

Architectural Resources

Previously-identified architectural resources located within the direct APE for the 90/110 

Alternative and the 125 Alternative are summarized in Exhibit 4-27 and Appendix G, respectively. 

The NHLs, State and National Register (S/NR)-listed and eligible historic districts are noted in the 

text below. Detailed tables listing the S/NR-listed and eligible individual resources are provided in 

Exhibit G-12 and G-13 in Appendix G. The approximate locations of these resources are illustrated 

on Exhibit G-14. The previously identified architectural resources within the indirect APEs are 

summarized in Appendix G.

Direct APE: 90/110 Alternative

A total of 79 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the direct APE for the 

90/110 Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. 

These resources are summarized by county in Exhibit 4-27. Of the 79 architectural resources, two 

resources are NHLs: Fort Klock in St. Johnsville, Montgomery Country and the Hudson River 

Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties. Fort Klock was designated a National Historic 

Landmark District by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in 1973. Fort Klock, a fortified stone 

homestead built in 1750, is part of a 30-acre complex that includes the historic homestead, a 

renovated Colonial Dutch Barn, blacksmith shop, and 19th century schoolhouse. The Hudson River 

National Historic Landmark District was designated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in 1990. 

143/ As delineated by NYSM, NYSM polygon sites represent the approximate extent of archaeological sites believed to occupy large areas,

and NYSM point sites represent identified locations of archaeological sites whose boundaries may not have been clearly defined.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-155

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-27 – Architectural Resources within the Direct APE for each Alternative

County NHL

S/NR-Listed 

Resources -

individual

S/NR-Listed 

Resources -

districts

S/NR-Listed 

Resources

Total

S/NREligible 

Resourcesindividual

S/NREligible 

Resources -

districts

S/NREligible 

Resources

Total

Total 

Resources

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

New York 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 7 7

Bronx 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Westchester 11 11 11 11 3 3 1 1 4 4 15 15

Putnam 3 3 2 2 5 5 0 0 5 5

Dutchess 12 12 2 2 14 14 1 2 1 1 15 16

Columbia 2 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 4 4

Greene 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rensselaer 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 3

Albany 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 0

Schenectady 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Montgomery 1 4 1 5 0 5 5 0 10 0

Herkimer 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0

Oneida 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0

Madison 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

Onondaga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cayuga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wayne 0 0 0 0 0 0

Monroe 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2

Genesee 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Erie 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3

Niagara 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Multiple 

Counties 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

TOTALS 2 1 41 39 12 8 53 47 20 10 4 3 24 13 79 61

Notes: Counties are listed from south to north, then east to west.

The 90/110 APE is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor alignment. 

The 125 APE is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 

miles long. 

The 32-square-mile district stretches from Germantown in Columbia County to Hyde Park in 

Dutchess County. It includes over 40 riverfront estates, two villages, four hamlets, and significant 

designed landscapes and farmlands.

There are 53 S/NR-listed resources within the direct APE. Of these, 41 are individually listed while 

12 are historic districts. The 53 individually listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12 in 

Appendix G. 

It should be noted that approximately 350 bridges meeting the 50 year age criterion for S/NR 

eligibility are located within the existing railroad alignment and thus within the direct APE. Any 

bridges 50 years old or older would also be evaluated for potential S/NR eligibility as part of the 

Tier 2 analysis. In order to evaluate the significance of these bridges, an architectural historian 

would conduct a field visit and would perform documentary research. The NYSDOT’s Contextual 

Study of New York State’s pre-1961 Bridges (November 1999) and Evaluation of National Register 

Page 4-156 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Eligibility (January 2002) would be consulted among other documentary sources. Bridges not 

previously evaluated by the NYSDOT Contextual Study would be evaluated as part of the Tier 2 

analysis.

Direct APE: 125 Alternative

A total of 61 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the direct APE for the 125 

Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. These 

resources are summarized by county in Exhibit 4-27. Of the 61, one is an NHL: the Hudson River 

Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties (described above).

There are 47 S/NR-listed resources within the direct APE. Of these, 39 are individually-listed and 

eight are historic districts. The 39 individually-listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12 in 

Appendix G. 

4.15.4. Potential Adverse Effects

As described above under “Existing Conditions,” previously-identified archaeological sites and 

architectural resources within the direct and indirect APEs have been inventoried and mapped. 

Because the design of program improvements has not progressed to a point sufficient to enable 

site-specific analyses of potential adverse effects, specific potential effects to architectural and 

archaeological resources will not be provided as part of this Tier 1 Assessment. An analysis of the 

program alternatives’ potential to result in direct and indirect effects to specific architectural and 

archaeological resources will be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis, as described above in 

the “Methodology” section and summarized below under “Future Analysis.” As previously noted, 

potential adverse effects on architectural resources include direct physical effects that alter the 

characteristics of the historic property in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features. For example, program activities that would result in direct 

effects would include the demolition of a train station either listed or determined to be eligible for 

listing on the NR. Potential direct effects would also result from altering a train station in such a 

way as to remove the character-defining features that qualify it for listing on the NR. Similarly, 

direct effects on archaeological resources could result from construction activity to install new 

track, platforms, or grade crossings. Potential indirect effects on architectural resources include 

installation of new signal systems or overheard bridges, which could constitute a visual intrusion 

that would diminish the property’s integrity, thereby adversely affecting its historic significance 

and hence its eligibility for listing on the NR. To the extent that the scope and activities of the 

various alternatives and their potential impacts can be identified at the present time, this 

information is provided below. Note that potential impacts were identified only for areas within the 

APE for each alternative where work is proposed. A comparison of the number of resources that 

could be affected by the Base Alternative, Alternative 90A, Alternative 90B, Alternative 110, and 

Alternative 125 is provided in Exhibit 4-28 and summarized below.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

against and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative 

will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-157

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-28—Comparison of Potential Impacts to Archaeological Sites and Architectural 

Resources, by Alternative

RESOURCE 

TYPE

NUMBER OF RESOURCES

Base Alternative 90A 90B 110 125

D I TOTAL D I TOTAL D I TOTAL D I TOTAL D I TOTAL

Archaeological 

Sites N/A N/A 3 30 N/A 30 87 N/A 109 83 N/A 105 35 N/A 57

NHLs N/A N/A 0 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 2 1 N/A 2 1 N/A 2

S/NR-listed 

Historic 

Districts

N/A 6 7 5 4 9 4 7 20 4 7 20 0 0 9

S/NR-listed 

Individual 

Resources

N/A 7 7 11 29 40 4 29 71 4 26 68 3 3 44

S/NR-eligible 

Historic 

Districts

N/A 3 4 N/A 3 3 2 11 13 2 10 12 0 0 0

S/NR-eligible 

Individual 

Resources

N/A 10 10 1 16 17 8 70 87 8 68 85 0 2 11

TOTAL 0 26 26 48 52 100 106 117 302* 103 214 292* 39 5 123*

Note: Resources that fall within the direct APE (D) are also located within the boundaries of the (I) indirect APE, as indicated in the Total column.

 *The following resources identified in Alternative 90A for the Empire Corridor South are included in the total resource count for 

 Alternatives 90B, 110, and 125: 22 archaeological sites; 1 NHL; 9 S/NR-listed Historic Districts; 38 S/NR-listed Individual resources; and 9 

 S/NR-eligible Individual resources.

in track and station infrastructure. 

Categorical Exclusions for eight projects in the Base Alternative are complete and have identified no 

adverse direct, physical or contextual impacts to archaeological sites or architectural resources in 

the direct APE. The CEs were reviewed to determine the potential for cultural resource effects, and, 

in addition, the historic assessment performed for this Tier 1 Draft EIS included research on 

documented cultural resources within the program’s APE. However, 26 architectural resources 

located in the indirect APE have been identified for this analysis, and potential impacts to these 

resources will be assessed as part of the Tier 2 analysis. As described above, the identification of 

potential architectural resources in the APEs will be undertaken as part of the Tier 2 analyses for 

this program, and impacts will be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites/Architectural Resources

In a letter dated August 14, 2007, SHPO determined that the proposed reconstruction of the 

Schenectady Station will not result in adverse impacts on archaeological and architectural 

resources. Additionally, in a letter dated April 27, 2007, SHPO determined that the new Niagara 

Falls Station will not have adverse archaeological impacts. In a letter dated May 17, 2013, SHPO 

determined that the Rochester Station redevelopment will not result in adverse impacts on 

archaeological and architectural resources.

Page 4-158 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

A total of 26 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the indirect APE for the 

Base Alternative. These include: 

• Monroe County – S/NR-listed Historic District: East Avenue Historic District (MP 368-370); St. 

Paul-North Water Streets Historic District (MP 371); State Street Historic District (MP 371); 

Bridge Square Historic District (MP 372); and Madison Square-West Main Street Historic 

District (MP 372); S/NR-listed Individual: German United Evangelical Church Complex (MP 

371); Leopold Street Shule (MP 370.5); Brick Presbyterian Church Complex (MP 371); Federal 

Building (MP 371); Andrews Street Bridge (MP 371); Washington Street Rowhouses (MP 372); 

S/NR-eligible Historic District: Public Market Historic District (MP 370); Prince Alexander 

Historic District (MP 370); Birch Crescent Historic District (MP 379); S/NR-eligible Individual: 

1290, 1255-1257, 1239, 1320 University Avenue (MP 368.5); J. Hunderford Smith building (MP 

369.5); Otis Lumber Co. (MP 369.5); Rochester Public Market (MP 370); Schwalb Coal & Oil Co. 

(MP 370.5); and Taylor Instrument Co. (MP 373) (23 total)

• Schenectady County – S/NR-listed Historic District: Stockade Historic District (MP 160) (1 

total)

• Niagara County – S/NR-listed Individual: Custom House (MP QDN28); S/NR-eligible Individual: 

947 Ontario Avenue (MP QDN28) (2 total)

An analysis of the potential for these Base Alternative projects to result in adverse impacts to the 

identified architectural resources will be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis as described in 

the “Methodology” section and summarized below in “Future Analysis.”

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. As with the 

Base Alternative, work proposed for the Alternative 90A is expected to occur within the existing 

right-of way. Categorical Exclusions for three of the projects in the 90A Alternative have been 

prepared and have identified no adverse impacts to architectural resources or archaeological 

resources in the direct APE for those specific projects. Exhibit 4-28 provides a summary of the total 

number of previously-identified archaeological sites and architectural resources located in the 

APEs for the Alternative 90A. 

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites

There are 30 previously-identified archaeological sites located in the direct APE for Alternative 90A 

that could experience direct, physical impacts due to construction-related activities, including 11 

burial/habitation sites. These include:

• New York County (Manhattan) – N (H, M) 144 site; N (R) site (2 total)

144 /Native American Sites (N): (B) Burial; (C) Camp site/Tool Production/ Workshop; (H) Habitation/Village/Hamlet; (M) Midden; (O) 

Other; (P) Petroglyph/Pictograph; (Q) Quarry; (R) Rockshelter; (S) Stray Finds/"Traces of Occupation”; (T) Trail; (U) 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-159

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Bronx County – N (M) site (1 total)

• Westchester County – N (S) site; two N (U) sites; N (M) site; N (C) site; and three N (H, B) sites 

(8 total)

• Putnam County – N (S) site; N (B) site (2 total)

• Dutchess County – two N (H) sites; N (C, B) site; two N (S) sites; N (Q) site (MP 65); two N (U) 

sites; and N (C, B) site (9 total)

• Montgomery County – N (U) site; X site; N (B) site; and N (T) site (4 total) 

• Onondaga County – N (C, H) site; N (S) site; N (H) site; and N (U) site (4 total)

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological resources and thus any potential 

impacts to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Architectural Resources

There are a total of 18 previously-identified architectural resources located in the direct APE for 

Alternative 90A that could experience direct, adverse impacts due to construction-related activities. 

These are:

• Westchester County – Lyndhurst (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 24); and Garrison Landing 

Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 50) (2 total)

• Putnam County – Cold Spring Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 52.5); S/NRlisted Individual: U.S. Military Academy (MP 51); and West Point Foundry (MP 52) (3 total)

• Dutchess County – S/NR-listed Historic District: Wheeler Historic District (MP 64); Stone Street 

Historic District (MP 65); S/NR-listed Individual: National Biscuit Company Carton-Making and 

Printing Plant (MP 59); Mount Gulian (MP 61.5); Carman, Cornelius House (MP 62); Collyer, 

Capt. Moses W. House (MP 62); Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge (MP 74); Poughkeepsie Railroad 

Station (MP 74); and Innis Dye Works (MP 74) (9 total)

• Dutchess/ Columbia Counties – Hudson River Historic District (NHL) (MP 82-102) (1 total)

• Rensselaer County – Schodack Landing Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District); 

Livingston Avenue Bridge (S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 143) (2 total)

• Montgomery County – Dove Creek Culvert (S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 177.5) (1 total)

As in the Base Alternative, work proposed for Alternative 90A is expected to occur within the 

existing right-of way. However, these resources are located within 100 feet of work proposed in the 

right-of-way. Therefore, construction-related activities could result in adverse impacts to these 

resources. A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine 

potential adverse impacts to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the 

direct APE. Impacts would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Unspecified/Unknown; Historic-Period Sites (H): (B) Burial/Cemetery; (D) Domestic; (F) Transportation/Infrastructure/Utilities; (I) 

Industrial or Commercial Deposits; (M) Maritime; (O) Other; (U) Unspecified/Unknown; (X): Unknown whether Precontact or Historic 

Period.

Page 4-160 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

There are 51 architectural resources located in the indirect APE for the 90A Alternative. These 

include: 

• New York County (Manhattan) – Fort Tryon Park and the Cloisters (S/NR-listed Individual)

(MP 9) (1 total)

• Bronx County – S/NR-listed Individual: Wave Hill (MP 13); Colgate Robert House (MP 13); and

the William E. Dodge House (MP 12) (3 total)

• Westchester County – S/NR-listed Individual: Croton North Railroad Station (MP 34); Standard

House (MP 41); Peekskill Freight Depot (MP 41); Bear Mountain Bridge and Tollhouse (MP 45);

S/NR-eligible Individual: Tarrytown Railroad Station (MP 25); Riverside Hose Company (MP

25); and a resource located on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and North Water Street

(MP 41.5) (7 total)

• Putnam County – S/NR-listed Individual: Wilson House (MP 49.5); Rock Lawn and Carriage

House; and Eagle’s Nest (MP 51) (3 total)

• Dutchess County – S/NR-listed Historic District: Main Street Historic District (MP 65); Union

Street Historic District (MP 73.5); Mill Street-North Clover Street Historic District; S/NR-listed

Individual: Shay’s Warehouse and Stable (MP 65); Shay, William Double House (MP65); Zion

Memorial Chapel (MP 65); Brower, Abraham House (MP 65); Brower, Adolph House (MP 65);

Bannerman’s Island Arsenal (MP 55.5); Chelsea Grammar School (MP 62); Church of the Holy

Comforter (MP 73.5); Pelton Mill (MP 74); Old St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church and Rectory

(MP 74); Hoffman House (MP 74); Roosevelt Point Cottage and Boathouse (MP 76); Rhinecliff

Hotel (MP 89); O’Brien General Store and Post Office (MP 89); Riverside Methodist Church and

Parsonage (MP 89); S/NR-eligible Individual: Metro-North Railroad Bridge (MP 58); MidHudson Bridge (MP 73); Johnson Plumbing Complex (MP 73); and Cornell Boathouse (MP 74.5)

(22 total)

• Columbia County – Hudson Historic District (MP 114.5) (S/NR-listed Historic District); S/NRlisted Individual: Wiswall, Oliver House (MP 113.8); Requa House (MP 129); and Hudson and

Boston Railroad Shop (MP 114.5) (S/NR-eligible Individual) (4 total)

• Montgomery County – S/NR-eligible Historic District: Amsterdam East Main Street Historic

District (MP 176); New York Canal System Historic District (MP 159-358.5); S/NR-eligible

Individual: Guy Park Manor (MP 176.5); 6-8 Voorhees Street (MP 175.5); 366, 399, 401 West

Main Street (MP 176.5); Guy Park (MP 177); resource on West Main Street (MP 177); and World

War I Memorial (MP 177.5) (10 total)

• Onondaga County – New York State Fairgrounds Historic District (MP 294) (S/NR-eligible

Historic District) (1 total)

Although adverse indirect, contextual effects to resources within the indirect APE are not 

anticipated, a field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis to determine potential 

adverse effects to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. 

Indirect effects would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-161

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

The work for this alternative also would include a new signal system to support the 90 mile an hour 

speed, new grade crossings, double track along the Niagara Branch, and new undergrade and 

overhead bridges. Improvements would be made at seven existing stations along Empire Corridor 

West.

The projects proposed for Alternative 90A in the direct and indirect APEs for Empire Corridor 

South (MP 1 to MP 143) also would be included in Alternative 90B. The discussion of potential 

impacts presented above under Alternative 90A is not reiterated in the impacts analysis for 

Alternative 90B. However, the number of archaeological sites and architectural resources 

identified in the direct and indirect APEs for the Empire Corridor South portion of Alternative 90A 

has been included in the total number of resources for Alternative 90B shown in Exhibit 4-28.

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites

There are 87 previously identified archaeological sites located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B 

(see Exhibit 4-28) that could experience direct, physical impacts due to construction-related 

activities, including 17 burial/habitation sites. These are: 

• Schenectady County – N (B) site; two N (U) sites; X site; N (S) site; N (C) site; N (H) site; and 

two H (U) sites (9 total)

• Montgomery County – seven N (U) sites; nine X sites; two N (C) sites; two H (U) sites; H (I) 

site; three N (P) sites; seven N (H) sites; two N (B) sites; N (S) site; three N (T) sites; two N (S) 

sites; and N (B, H) site (39 total)

• Herkimer County – X site; N (U) site; H (M) site; N (H) site; and four N (S, T) sites (8 total)

• Oneida County – three N (C) sites; and N (B) site; and Sites 1 and 2 identified by the Oneida 

Nation (6 total)

• Onondaga County – N (H) site ; N (C, H) site; four N (S) sites; N (U) site; H (I) site; N (C) site; 

and H (U) site (10 total)

• Cayuga County – N (U) site (1 total)

• Wayne County – N (S) site (1 total)

• Monroe County – N (B) site; N (U) site; N (T, S) site; N (C) site; and N (S) site (5 total)

• Genesee County – two N (T) sites; two N (C, S) sites; N (S) site; and H (D) site (6 total)

• Erie County – N (U) site; and N (C) site (2 total)

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological sites and thus any potential impacts 

to archaeological resources.

Page 4-162 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Direct APE: Architectural Resources

Work proposed for Alternative 90B—which mainly consists of the construction of new track and 

new access road work— could have adverse impacts on architectural resources located within the 

direct APE due to construction-related activities. Exhibit 4-28 provides a summary of the total 

number of architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B.

Only one of the seven existing stations where improvements are proposed for this alternative has 

been identified as a known architectural resource: Utica Station, located in Oneida County, which is 

discussed below. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, the other six stations, including Schenectady 

Station, Amsterdam Station, Rome Station, Syracuse Station, Rochester Station, and Buffalo-Depew 

Station, would be evaluated for their potential eligibility for listing on the State/National Registers, 

and impacts would be evaluated for any other stations identified as eligible for S/NR listing. Union 

Station in Utica (referred to within this EIS as the Utica Station) is S/NR-listed. Proposed work at 

this station includes the construction of a new center island platform and overhead pedestrian 

bridge; work in the station area also would include new siding, new passenger and freight track, 

removal of existing track, and new turnouts. This work could have potential adverse impacts on the 

station.

There are 19 architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B that could 

experience direct, adverse impacts due to construction-related activities. These include:

• Schenectady County – Stockade Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 160) (1 

total)

• Schenectady/Montgomery/Madison/Monroe Counties – New York Canal System Historic 

District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (MPs 160, 177, 191, 201, 330, 332.5, and 358.5). The 

non-contiguous historic district includes several resources located along the railroad corridor, 

such as a railroad bridge over Erie Boulevard in Schenectady (MP 160), Lock E-13 in the Town 

of Root, Montgomery County (MP 191), and a moveable dam and lock in the Town of Palatine, 

Montgomery County (MP 201) (1 total)

• Montgomery County – Fort Klock (NHL) (MP 205); Nelliston Historic District (S/NR-listed 

Historic District) (MP 201); S/NR-listed Individual: Guy Park (MP 177); Montgomery County 

Farm (MP 193-194); Palatine Bridge Freight House (MP 197.8); S/NR-eligible Individual: 

Property at the northwest corner of Ann and Main Streets, Amsterdam (MP 177.5); Dove Creek 

Culvert that runs beneath the right-of-way near Steadwell Avenue in the Town of Amsterdam 

(MP 177.5); H.D.F. Veeder House (MP 188); hexagonal limestone well shelter (MP 198); and the 

Palatine Bridge cut limestone retaining wall and bridge abutment (MP 198) (10 total)

• Herkimer County – Little Fall Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (1 total)

• Oneida County – Union Station, Utica (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 237.5); and a railroad 

station building in the village of Oriskany (S/NR-eligible Individual (MP 244.5) (2 total)

• Monroe County – Brown’s Race Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 370); 

S/NR-eligible Individual: Coldwater Station (MP 378); and 60 South Main Street (MP 386) (3 

total)

• Genesee County – Lake Street Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 389) (1 

total)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-163

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential 

adverse impacts to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. 

Impacts would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

The exact area of the proposed property acquisitions at MPs 168.3, 210.8, 215.6, 237.7, 286.4, 

341.1, 377.6 has not yet been determined. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the 

property to be acquired would be directly adjacent to the existing right-of-way. There are no 

previously-identified architectural resources located in close proximity to these mile markers, with 

one exception: MP 237.7, which is in close proximity to Union Station in Utica (discussed above). 

There could be additional adverse impacts to potential architectural resources as a result of the 

property acquisitions proposed for Alternative 90B. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, properties 

proposed to be acquired would be surveyed to identify any potential architectural resources. 

Impacts would be assessed for any resources identified as eligible for listing on the State/National 

Registers.

It should be noted that there are a number of rail bridges located within the right-of-way, which 

could be adversely affected by work proposed for this alternative. These bridges would be 

identified and evaluated for their potential eligibility for S/NR listing in the Tier 2 level analysis. 

Impacts would be evaluated for any bridges determined to be eligible for S/NR listing.

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

There are 116 architectural resources located in the indirect APE for Alternative 90B. Exhibit 4-28

provides a summary of the total number of resources located in the indirect APE for this 

alternative. These include:

• Schenectady County – Union Street Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 159.8); 

S/NR-listed Individual: Central Fire Station (MP 159.5); Proctor, F.F. Theater and Arcade (MP 

159.5); and Swart House and Tavern (MP 167.5) (4 total)

• Montgomery County – S/NR-listed Individual: Fort Johnson (MP 179); New Courthouse –

Fonda (MP 186.5); Wagner, Webster House (MP 198); Frey House (MP 198.2); Nellis Tavern 

(MP 205.5); S/NR-eligible Historic District: Amsterdam East Main Street Historic District (MP 

175.8); and Fonda Fairgrounds and Speedway Historic District (MP 186); and S/NR-eligible 

Individual: 6-8 Voorhees Street (MP 175); 366, 399, 401 West Main Street (MP 176.5); World 

War I Memorial (MP 177.8); 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 37 East Main Street (MP 

186); 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 22, 26, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 46, and 56 West Main Street (MP 186); 

1 Cayadutta Street; Lock E-14 and Lock House; and the Nelson and Reese House (including 

cemetery and barn foundations) (MP 207) (43 total)

• Herkimer County – S/NR-listed Individual: Herkimer House (MP 214); U.S. Post Office – Little 

Falls (MP 216.5); Herkimer County Trust Company building (MP 216.5); Palatine German 

Frame House (Wilder House) (MP 227); and S/NR-eligible Individual: 591 East John Street (MP 

216.5); 401, 403, 407 South Ann Street (MP 216.5); Fleet Bank (MP 216.5); Snyder Apartments 

(MP 216.5); 48-54 West Main Street (MP 216.5); 24, 25, 55, 56 West Mill (MP 216.5); 151 

Elizabeth Street (MP 217); and 338 West Main Street (MP 217) (17 total)

• Oneida County – Lower Genesee Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (MP 237.5); 

S/NR-eligible Individual: Foster Brothers Manufacturing Company (MP 237); Hieber, John C. and 

Company building (MP 237.5); Utica Daily Press building (MP 237.5); Hurd & Fitzgerald 

Page 4-164 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

building (MP 237.5); and Byington Mill (Frisbie & Stansfield Knitting Company) (MP 237.5) (7 

total) 

• Madison County – South Peterboro Street Commercial Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic

District); and S/NR-listed Individual: U.S. Post Office – Canastota (MP 270); United Church of

Canastota (MP 270); 203 South Main Street (MP 270); Canastota Public Library (MP 270); 115

South Main Street (MP 270); 223 James Street (MP 270); Alvord House (289.5); and East

Palmyra Presbyterian Church (MP 344.5) (7 total)

• Onondaga County – Alvord House (S/NR-listed Individual (MP 289.5); and New York State

Fairgrounds Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District (MP 294) (2 total)

• Wayne County – East Palmyra Presbyterian Church (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 344.5); and

Village of Clyde Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District (MP 328.5) (2 total)

• Monroe County – S/NR-listed Historic District: East Avenue Historic District (MP 368-370); St.

Paul-North Water Streets Historic District (MP 371); State Street Historic District (MP 371);

Bridge Square Historic District (MP 372); Madison Square-West Main Street Historic District

(MP 372); S/NR-listed Individual: Leopold Street Shule (MP 370.5); German United Evangelical

Church Complex (MP 371); Andrews Street Bridge (MP 371); Federal Building (MP 371); Brick

Presbyterian Church (371); Washington Street Rowhouses (MP 372); S/NR-eligible Historic

District: Birch Crescent Historic District (MP 379); Prince Alexander Historic District (MP 370);

Public Market Historic District (MP 370); and S/NR-eligible Individual: Foster Armstrong Piano

Warehouse (MP 364); 1290, 1255-1257, 1239, 1320 University Avenue (MP 368.5); J.

Hunderford Smith Company building (MP 369.5); Otis Lumber Company building (MP 369.5);

Rochester Public Market (MP 370); Schwalb Coal & Oil Company (MP 370.5); Taylor Instrument

Company (MP 373); Building C2 (H.F. Snyder & Son) (MP 386); and Building Z (former

Richmond Residence) (MP 386) (26 total)

• Genesee County – Village of Bergen Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (MP 389);

and 20 North Lake Street (S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 389) (2 total)

• Erie County – S/NR-listed Individual: Buffalo Gas Light Company Works (MP 2.8); Delaware

Park-Front Park System (MP 4); S/NR-eligible Historic District: Wende Correctional Facility (MP

422); Joseph Ellicot Downtown Historic District; S/NR-eligible Individual: 1032 Niagara Street

(MP 5); 1073 Niagara Street (MP 5) (6 total)

Although direct, adverse impacts to architectural resources due to construction-related activities 

are not anticipated for resources located within the indirect APE, it is possible that this alternative 

could have indirect, contextual impacts to these resources. An analysis of potential adverse impacts, 

including visual or contextual impacts, to architectural resources located in the indirect APE for 

Alternative 90B would be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis. A field survey would be 

conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential adverse impacts to these 

resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. Impacts would be assessed 

for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-165

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. As with Alternative 90B, Alternative 

110 also would include a new signal system to support the 110 mile an hour speed, new grade 

crossings, and new undergrade and overhead bridges, and the same improvements would be made 

at seven existing stations along Empire Corridor West. Exhibit 4-28 provides a summary of the 

total number of archaeological sites and architectural resources located in the APEs for Alternative 

110.

As with Alternative 90B, the projects proposed for Alternative 90A in the direct and indirect APEs 

for Empire Corridor South (MP 1 to MP 143) also would be included in Alternative 110. The 

discussion of potential impacts presented above under Alternative 90A is not reiterated in the 

impacts analysis for Alternative 110. However, the number of archaeological sites and architectural 

resources identified in the direct and indirect APEs for the Empire Corridor South portion of 

Alternative 90A has been included in the total number of resources for Alternative 110 shown in 

Exhibit 4-28. 

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites

A majority of the previously-identified archaeological sites that have the potential to be adversely 

impacted by the Alternative 110 are the same as those that could be adversely impacted by the 

similar projects proposed for Alternative 90B, including 18 burial/habitation sites. There are three 

exceptions:

• Two N (U) sites located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B in Schenectady County are not

located in the direct APE for Alternative 110.

• One N (S) site located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B in Montgomery County would not be

located in the direct APE for Alternative 110. One N (H) site in Montgomery County located in

the direct APE for Alternative 110 is not located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B.

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological sites and thus any potential impacts 

to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Architectural Resources

The number of NHLs, S/NR-listed Historic Districts, S/NR-listed Individual resources, S/NR-eligible 

Historic Districts, and S/NR-eligible Individual resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 

110 are the same as the number of resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B. 

Therefore, the number of previously identified architectural resources that could experience 

adverse, direct impacts due to construction-related activities in Alternative 110 is the same as those 

for Alternative 90B. 

As with Alternative 90B, there are seven existing stations along Empire Corridor West where 

improvements are proposed for Alternative 110—one of which has been identified as a known 

architectural resource: Utica Station, located in Oneida County. The other six stations where 

improvements are proposed would be evaluated for their potential eligibility for listing on the 

State/National Registers, then impacts would be assessed for any stations identified as eligible for 

S/NR listing. Additionally, as with Alternative 90B, there are a number of rail bridges located 

Page 4-166 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

within the right-of-way, which could be adversely impacted by work proposed for this alternative. 

As part of the level Tier 2 analysis, these bridges would be identified and evaluated for their 

potential eligibility for listing on the State/National Registers, then adverse impacts would be 

assessed for any bridges determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Certain elements of Alternative 110, including the proposed realignment of sections of Route 5, 

could potentially impact residential and commercial buildings outside the right-of-way at the 

following locations: MPs 164.5-165.4; 172.6; 173.6; 183.2; 184.5; 185; 186.8; 187.3; 189; 191.7; 

192.5-192.8; 196.4; 196.7; 196.9; 198; 200.6; 210.8; 226.4-227; 228; 230.4-230.9; 360.6; 361.2; and 

402.4. Although there are no previously identified architectural resources within close proximity to 

these locations, as part of the level Tier 2 analysis, the potentially affected properties would be 

surveyed to identify any potential architectural resources that may eligible for listing on the 

State/National Registers.

The exact area of the proposed property acquisitions at MPs 168.3, 184.6, 186.3, 191.7, 198.1, 

200.6, 207.5, 210.8, 215.1, 226.9, 228.0, 230.8, 237.2, 286.4, 341.1, 361.4, 377.6, and 389.1 has not 

yet been determined. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the property to be acquired 

would be directly adjacent to the existing right-of-way. Although there are no previously identified 

architectural resources located in close proximity to these mile markers, there could be adverse 

impacts to potential architectural resources as a result of the property acquisitions proposed for 

Alternative 110. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, properties proposed to be acquired would be 

surveyed to identify any potential architectural resources. Impacts would then be assessed for any 

resources identified as eligible for S/NR listing.

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

As with the direct APE, the number of NHLs, S/NR-listed Historic Districts, S/NR-listed Individual 

resources, S/NR-eligible Historic Districts, and S/NR-eligible Individual resources located in the 

indirect APE for Alternative 110 are the same as the number of resources located in the indirect 

APE for Alternative 90B, with the addition of the Walrath-Van Horne House (MP 201.5), an S/NRlisted individual resource in Montgomery County. Although direct, adverse impacts to these 

architectural resources due to construction-related activities are not anticipated for resources 

located within the indirect APE, it is possible that this alternative could have indirect, contextual 

effects to these resources. An analysis of potential adverse indirect impacts, including visual or 

contextual impacts, to architectural resources located in the indirect APE for Alternative 110 would 

be conducted during the Tier 2 analysis. A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 

analysis in order to determine potential adverse impacts to these resources and to identify 

potential architectural resources in the APE. Impacts would be assessed for any resources 

determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would use 125 miles per hour as the MAS and would be the first speed threshold 

for electrically powered trains. Alternative 125 would construct a two-track, grade-separated 

corridor dedicated to high speed passenger service approximately 283 miles in length from 

Albany/Rensselaer Station to Buffalo Exchange Street Station. Trains would operate on the existing 

Hudson Line Corridor from New York Penn Station to Albany/Rensselaer Station. The new corridor 

would parallel the existing corridor on a combination of new and existing right-of-way to serve 

existing stations in Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Required infrastructure would include 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-167

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

roadbed, track, viaducts, bridges, cuts, embankments, access roads, railroad systems, maintenance 

facilities and other support facilities.

The projects proposed for Alternative 90A in the direct and indirect APEs for Empire Corridor 

South (MP 1 to MP 143) and the Niagara Branch also would be included in Alternative 125. The 

discussion of potential impacts presented under Alternative 90A is not reiterated in the impacts 

analysis for Alternative 125. However, the number of archaeological sites and architectural 

resources identified in the direct and indirect APEs for the Empire Corridor South portion of 

Alternative 90A has been included in the total number of resources for Alternative 125 shown in

Exhibit 4-28. The Programmatic Agreement (included as Appendix H) addresses the process by 

which FRA and NYSDOT intend to comply with Section 106 for undertakings occurring on tribal 

lands or where adverse effects to historic properties of a religious or cultural significance to a tribe 

occur off tribal land. 

Direct APE: Archaeological Resources

There are 35 previously identified archaeological sites located in the direct APE of proposed 

new track for Alternative 125 (see Exhibit 4-28) that could experience direct, physical impacts 

due to construction-related activities, including six burial/habitation sites. These are: 

• Albany County – two N (C) sites; and H (I) site (3 total)

• Schenectady County –N (C) site (1 total)

• Schoharie County – N (U) site (1 total)

• Montgomery County –N (S), H (U) site; H (U) site (2 total)

• Herkimer County – H (B) site (1 total)

• Oneida County – N (C) sites; N (B) site; N (H) site; and Site 3 identified by the Oneida Nation (4

total)

• Madison County – two N (S) sites; N (C) site; and Sites 4 and 5 identified by the Oneida Nation

(5 total)

• Onondaga County – two N (H) sites ; two N (S) sites; two H (D) sites; and N (C) site (7 total)

• Cayuga County – N (B); and N (S) site (2 total)

• Wayne County – N (S) site; and N (C) site (2 total)

• Genesee County – two N (C) sites; and N (S) site (3 total)

• Erie County – two N (C) sites; N (C, S) site; and N (S) site (4 total)

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological sites and thus any potential impacts 

to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Architectural Resources

Work proposed for the Alternative 125—which mainly consists of the construction of new track—

could have adverse impacts on architectural resources located within the direct APE due to 

Page 4-168 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

construction-related activities. Exhibit 4-28 provides a summary of the total number of 

architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 125.

There are three architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 125 that could 

experience direct, adverse impacts due to construction-related activities. These include:

• Schenectady County – Liddle, Robert Farmhouse (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 167) (1 total)

• Madison County – Deferriere House (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 252.8) (1 total)

• Erie County – Hull, Warren House (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 411) (1 total)

A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential 

adverse impacts to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. 

Impacts would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

There are five architectural resources located in the indirect APE for the Alternative 125. Exhibit 

4-28 provides a summary of the total number of resources located in the indirect APE for this 

alternative. These include:

• Albany County – Nut Grove (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 144); and 924 New Scotland Road

(S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 147) (2 total)

• Schenectady County – S/NR-listed Individual: Reformed Presbyterian Church Parsonage (MP

169); and Halladay House (MP 172); and US 20 between Knight and Mudge Roads (S/NReligible Individual) (MP 170.5) (3 total)

Although direct, adverse impacts to architectural resources due to construction-related activities 

are not anticipated for resources located within the indirect APE, it is possible that this alternative 

could have indirect, contextual impacts to these resources. An analysis of potential adverse impacts, 

including visual or contextual impacts, to architectural resources located in the indirect APE for 

Alternative 125 would be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis. A field survey would be 

conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential adverse impacts to these 

resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. Impacts would be assessed 

for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

4.15.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

A draft Programmatic Agreement has been prepared for this program (see Appendix H), which 

identifies a methodology for the Section 106 process implemented for component projects 

advanced at the Tier 2 level. The PA would be signed by the FRA as lead federal agency, NYSDOT, 

and the SHPO. Participating federally recognized tribes and consulting parties would be invited to 

sign the PA as concurring parties. The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) declined 

to participate in the development of the PA via e-mail dated July 20, 2012. However, ACHP may 

choose to participate in the consultation when there are substantial impacts to historic properties, 

when a case presents important questions of policy or interpretation, when there is a potential for 

procedural problems, or when there are issues of concern to Indian tribes. ACHP must be invited to 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-169

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

participate when the federal agency sponsoring a project wants the Council’s involvement and 

when the project would have an adverse effect on a NHL. Execution of the PA and implementation 

of the terms therein satisfies the requirement of Section 106 that the Council be given a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the Tier 1 undertaking, and demonstrates that the federal agency has 

taken into account the effects of the action. 

For archaeological resources, mitigation measures that may be identified for component projects at 

the Tier 2 level may include Phase III data recovery, documentation, geoarchaeological survey, 

preparation and implementation of archaeological protection plans, and/or preparation of public 

education materials.

For architectural resources, possible mitigation measures include: 

• The preservation or relocation of historic buildings;

• Documentation of resources following Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic

American Engineering Record (HAER) standards;

• Production of educational materials interpreting the history and significance of affected

resources for use by local libraries, historical societies, and educational institutions; and

• Installation of signage interpreting the history and significance of affected resources along the

proposed rail corridor, or planting vegetation or creating noise barriers along the proposed rail

corridor.

Furthermore, in order to avoid inadvertent damage to historic resources located in close proximity 

to possible project construction, all appropriate resources would be included in a Construction 

Protection Plan (CPP). The CPP would identify the historic resources to be included in the plan. It 

would also set for the specific measures to be used and specifications that would be applied to 

protect these resources during the construction period. 

If unavoidable potential direct and/or indirect adverse effects are identified during the Tier 2 

analysis, more detailed and specific measures to minimize and/or mitigate these effects would be 

defined and implemented in consultation with SHPO, involved THPOs and/or Tribal Organizations, 

ACHP (if appropriate), and any involved consulting parties, as described in the draft PA and noted 

under Section 4.15.6, “Programmatic Agreement and Future Analysis.”

4.15.6. Programmatic Agreement and Future Analysis

As described in the “Methodology” section, the environmental compliance for this program is being 

conducted using a phased approach as outlined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) and 800.5(a)(3). 

Determinations of eligibility and effect under Section 106 of NHPA may be deferred to Tier 2 of the 

process under the terms of a PA executed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b). A draft PA, 

included as Appendix H, provides a mechanism and framework for meeting NHPA compliance 

obligations in the Tier 2 phase of the program. The draft PA identifies a protocol for preparing sitespecific environmental documentation for component projects, as appropriate, in subsequent 

phases or tiers of the program in accordance with NEPA and NHPA. The PA sets forth guidelines for 

the following procedures at the Tier 2 level: consultation with SHPO, federally recognized tribes, 

other consulting parties; delineation of APEs and identification and evaluation of historic 

properties; assessment of adverse effects; and resolution of adverse effects. The PA also provides a 

Page 4-170 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

list of property types exempt from review as historic properties and a list of routine maintenance 

activities that would be exempt from the Section 106 methodology outlined in the PA.

As component projects are progressed to the Tier 2 level, APEs for each component project would 

be developed in consultation with SHPO, federally recognized tribes and consulting parties, as 

appropriate to reflect the effects of each Tier 2 project. More detailed existing conditions data 

collection and effects assessments, the protocol for which is outlined in detail in the draft PA, would 

be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis. Existing conditions data presented in this Tier 1 

document would be revised and/or expanded upon as appropriate to account for all historic 

properties in the APEs of component projects assessed at the Tier 2 level. In regard to 

archaeological resources, archaeological documentary studies and field investigations (where 

appropriate) would be conducted in sensitive portions of the direct APEs to determine the presence 

or absence of S/NR-eligible archaeological resources. If S/NR-eligible archaeological resources are 

identified in the direct APEs that could be affected by a proposed project, additional investigations 

(such as Phase II field surveys) would be undertaken to determine the physical extents and 

significance (S/NR eligibility) of archaeological sites.

For architectural resources, additional existing conditions data that would be collected as part of 

the Tier 2 analysis would include the identification of architectural resources that meet the S/NR 

criteria but had not been previously determined S/NR-eligible. The bridges and railroad facilities 

located within the direct APEs also would be evaluated for S/NR-eligibility as part of the Tier 2 

analysis. In order to evaluate the significance of these resources, an architectural historian would 

conduct a field visit, and would prepare documentation in the form of a Cultural Resources Survey 

(CRS) Report. The content, methodology, level of effort, and documentation requirements for 

historic property evaluations in the CRS shall be conducted in accordance with State Education 

Department (SED) Work Scope Standards, which incorporate the standards of the New York 

Archaeological Council (NYAC). Based on this documentation, FRA would make determinations of 

eligibility in consultation with SHPO.

Once the additional data collection for existing conditions in the APEs has been completed, the 

effect of project alternatives on historic properties will be evaluated. The Advisory Council’s 

Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR 800.5[a][1]) will be applied to determine effects on the historic 

properties. In general, an adverse effect occurs when a proposed project may cause a change in the 

characteristics of a property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. The proposed 

project’s adverse effects will be identified in coordination with ACHP, SHPO, and participating 

federally recognized tribes and consulting parties. The lead agency will issue an Effect Finding in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(e).

If the analysis concludes that a proposed project would have an adverse effect, measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects will be identified. This mitigation most likely will be 

implemented through project-level Memorandum(a) of Agreement (MOA). A PA differs from an 

MOA in that MOAs are used to resolve known and definable adverse effects on historic properties, 

whereas PAs are used when the effects of an undertaking are not fully known. All appropriate 

coordination with ACHP, SHPO, and applicable THPOs, tribal organizations, and consulting parties, 

would be undertaken as part of this process in compliance with Section 106. Guidelines for MOAs 

prepared as part of component projects at the Tier 2 level are provided in the Draft PA. 

As noted above in “Regulatory Context,” in addition to Section 106, the effects of the undertaking on 

historic properties will also be considered under Section 110 of NHPA and Section 4(f) as part of a 

separate future analysis. Section 110 of NHPA mandates additional protection of NHLs by requiring 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-171

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

that federal agencies undertake planning and actions as necessary to minimize harm when 

considering undertakings that may directly and adversely affect NHLs. Section 4(f) prohibits 

actions by the Secretary of Transportation that require “use” of a historic property that is listed in 

or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, unless a determination is made that there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and all possible planning has been 

undertaken to minimize harm to the 4(f) property. 

4.16. Parks and Recreational Areas

4.16.1. Regulatory Context

Federal protection of parklands is provided under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Act (for federally funded transportation projects) and under Section 6(f) of the U.S. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (for LWCF-funded parks). Section 4.23 also 

addresses potential Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) resources and evaluations needed in Tier 2.

Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) of 1969, as amended, states that the Secretary of 

the U.S. DOT shall not approve any program or project that requires the “use” of any land from a 

public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site, unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative, and such project or program includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm. 

Under Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act, the United States 

Department of the Interior (DOI) provides funding for state, county, and local efforts to advance 

public recreation. Once LWCF funds are utilized for a particular recreation project, conversion of 

that park facility for any non-recreational purpose is prohibited unless alternatives are assessed 

and steps are taken to identify, evaluate, and supply replacement parkland. In addition, the 

Secretary of Interior must grant prior approval for the conversion and replacement parkland. 

Section 6(f) applies to parklands on which Land and Water Conservation Funding has been 

expended. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act states that: “No property acquired or 

developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted 

to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he 

finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and 

only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation 

properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location 

(Sec. 6 [16 U.S.C. 4601-8] (e) (3)).” If a conversion of Section 6(f) parks or lands may occur, a Section 

6(f) Evaluation will be prepared and circulated as part of Tier 2.

New York State places similar restrictions on all municipal parklands, which cannot be converted to 

a non-park use without prior approval from the New York State Legislature (referred to in New 

York as parkland alienation). The legal basis for the need for “parkland alienation” legislation is not 

found in statute, but has been established in common law through the New York State courts under 

the “public trust doctrine.” When a municipality accepts federal or state funding for the acquisition 

or improvement of parklands, additional restrictions apply to the sale, lease, exchange, or use for 

non-park purposes. 

Page 4-172 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.16.2. Methodology

Parks and recreation areas for study areas within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for all 

alternatives were identified using existing mapping collected from federal and state agencies. 

Federal, state, county, and municipal parks and recreation areas were located using Geographic 

Information System (GIS) mapping obtained from the New York State GIS Clearinghouse, New York 

State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), and the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The GIS mapping obtained of federal and 

state parks and recreation areas included National Memorials, National Wildlife Refuges, and 

National and State Historic Sites, and these sites were included as publicly accessible recreation 

destinations. Information from the National Park Service (NPS) staff was obtained on locations of 

NPS properties, including National Natural Landmarks,145 National Memorials, and National 

Monuments.146 The NPS website was consulted to identify and locate these NPS properties, 

National Heritage Areas and county-by-county Land and Water Conservation Fund park grants. 

Information obtained from the GIS mapping included locations of state heritage areas, state forests 

and preserves, state campgrounds, boat launches, and NYSDEC roads, trails, and snowmobile trails. 

GIS mapping collected from the NYSOPRHP included LWCF funded municipal parks. Aerial 

photography and Google street mapping were reviewed to supplement existing maps and identify 

other parks and recreation areas within 1000 feet of the corridor centerline for both the 90/110 

and the 125 Study Areas. Publicly owned recreation areas were defined to include publicly owned 

golf courses (but not “public” golf courses that are open to the public, but privately owned). This 

section also addresses tribally owned recreational facilities.

4.16.3. Existing Conditions

Overview

The existing parks and recreation areas in the study area are concentrated in two main areas: the 

Hudson River Valley and the New York State Barge Canal system within the Mohawk River Valley.

• The program corridor extends along the east bank of the Hudson River between New York City 

and Albany a distance of 142 miles. The Hudson River Valley in the program area has a 

concentration of national, state, county, and municipal parks and recreation areas due to its 

location and scenic views, as well as the concentration of population centers that developed 

along the river. The area also has a rich cultural and economic heritage and hosts a number of 

historic districts and sites. The Hudson Valley also was the location of the estates of many 

wealthy New York industrialists, such as John D. Rockefeller and Frederick William Vanderbilt, 

and of nationally important individuals such as Franklin Roosevelt, a descendant of one of the 

early Dutch families in the region. The national and state historic sites are important 

recreational tourism destinations.

• The New York State Canal System is a navigable 524-mile inland waterway that crosses 

upstate New York. The New York State Barge Canals, owned by the New York State Canal 

Corporation (a subsidiary of the New York State Thruway Authority) provide recreational 

145/ Deb DeQuinzio, National Natural Landmarks Program, National Park Service Northeast Region, “Moss Island,” E-mail/personal 

communication to Addie Kim, HNTB Corporation, March 22, 2011.

146/ Duncan Hay, National Park Service, Northeast Region, “NYSDOT & FRA Compliance (NEPA), E-mail/personal communication to 

Addie Kim, HNTB Corporation, March 25, 2001.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-173

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

opportunities for water-based navigation and trail users. The New York State Canalway Trail 

System is comprised of a network of more than 260 miles of existing multi-use, recreational 

trails across upstate New York. Major segments are adjacent to the waterways of the New York 

State Canal System or follow remnants of the historic original canals of the early 1800s that 

preceded today's working Canal System. The Canalway Trail System is comprised of four major 

segments: the 100-mile Erie Canal Heritage Trail in Western New York; the 36-mile Old Erie 

Canal State Park Trail in Central New York; the 60-mile Mohawk-Hudson Bikeway in the 

eastern Capital Region. Portions of this canal system are nationally or state-designated heritage 

areas, parks, and trails.

The national, state, county, and municipal parks and recreation areas and federally and statedesignated heritage and historic sites that are also important tourism destinations are described in 

the following sections.

National Parks and Recreation Areas

There are several types of federally designated parks or recreation areas in the study area, 

including National Heritage Areas, a National Memorial, a National Natural Landmark, a National 

Wildlife Refuge, and National Historic Sites. National Historic Landmarks and National Register 

Historic Districts and sites in the program area are addressed under Section 4.15.3. 

• National Heritage Areas: Congress established National Heritage Areas to promote historic 

preservation and an appreciation of the history and heritage of the designated site. National 

Heritage Areas are not federally owned or managed, but are administered by state or local 

governments or non-profit or private corporations, with the National Park Service providing an 

advisory role. The Empire Corridor traverses through three National Heritage Areas: 

o Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area: The Hudson River Valley National Heritage 

Area was designated by Congress in 1996 and extends from New York City north to Albany, 

along the Empire Corridor South. The heritage of the region dates back to the 

Revolutionary War, with several National Historic Landmarks and historic districts, estates 

of well-known historical figures, scenic parks, and gardens.

o Erie Canalway National Heritage Area: The Erie Canalway National Heritage Area 

includes the Erie Canal system (Erie, Champlain, Oswego, and Cayuga-Seneca Canals) that 

extends through upstate New York, along most of the central and eastern portions of the 

Empire Corridor West. The New York State Canal System is the most commercially 

enduring and historically significant canal way in the United States. This waterway played a 

key role in turning New York City into our country's most important center for commerce, 

industry, and finance. 

o Niagara Falls National Heritage Area: Designated by Congress in 2008, the Niagara Falls 

National Heritage Area stretches from the western boundary of Wheatfield, New York to the 

mouth of the Niagara River on Lake Ontario, including the community of Niagara Falls at the 

western end of the Niagara Branch. The region is home to dramatic natural features, rich 

cultural traditions, and nationally significant historical sites.

• National Memorial: National Memorials are places designated by the U.S. Congress for 

protection as a memorial to a historic person or event. Twenty-eight National Memorials in the 

Page 4-174 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Nation are owned and administered by the National Park Service and five more are 

administered by other organizations but are considered affiliated areas. 

The only National Memorial within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline is the General Grant 

National Memorial, also known as Grant’s Tomb, the largest tomb in North America. The site 

is located within Riverside Park overlooking the Hudson River in Manhattan (Milepost 5). 

Grant's Tomb (as it is commonly called) is not only the final resting place of Grant and his wife 

but commemorates the 18th president and general that presided over the Union victory in the 

Civil War. The site is part of the system of National Parks of New York Harbor.

• National Natural Landmark: The National Registry of Natural Landmarks includes nationally

significant geological and biological features. Only one-half of the National Natural Landmarks

nationwide are administered solely by public agencies, and nearly one-third are owned entirely

by private parties. Because many natural landmarks are privately owned and/or not managed

for public access, owner permission must be obtained prior to visitation. Designation in no way

infers any right of public access.

The only site within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline is Moss Island, near Milepost 216 and

Lock 17 on the Erie Canal in Little Falls, Herkimer County. Moss Island is part of an uplifted

fault block of ancient crystalline rock. It contains the best exposure of glacial age potholes

eroded by meltwater floods in the eastern United States. It was designated in 1976 and is

owned by the state.

• National Wildlife Refuge: The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, is the nation’s system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve fish,

wildlife and plants. Recreational wildlife-dependent uses permitted on some refuges include

hunting and fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and

interpretation.

The only national wildlife refuge within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline is the Montezuma

National Wildlife Refuge (the Approved Acquisition Area for the refuge is located between

Mileposts 323 to 326) in Wayne County. The area known as the Montezuma Marshes once

drew thousands of waterfowl making their annual fall migration. In 1938, the Montezuma NWR

was formed to restore the wetland habitat with impoundments created by development of the

Erie Canal, smaller feeder canals, and agricultural development. Today, the refuge consists of

10,000 acres, and accommodates recreational uses, including hunting that is restricted (on

designated days only upon reservation to a limited number of individuals and groups).

• National Historic Sites: Two National Historic Sites along the banks of the Hudson River in

Hyde Park, Dutchess County are within the 1,000 foot buffer area. These sites are open to the

public and are nationally important recreational tourism destinations:

o Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site: The 50-room Classical-style mansion on 212

acres (near Milepost 80) was built in 1898. It was constructed by Frederick William

Vanderbilt, a grandson of “Commodore” Cornelius Vanderbilt – the shipping and railroad

magnate and richest man in America during his lifetime. Landscaped grounds feature a

formal terraced garden, expansive lawns, carriage roads, and a three-mile-long riverside

hiking trail.

o Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site: This site covering approximately

800 acres (at Mileposts 77-78) was the birthplace, lifelong home, and burial place of

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, America’s 32nd President. The site includes 384.3 acres owned

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-175

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

by the federal government, and 415.7 acres that are non-federal.147 It was purchased by 

Roosevelt’s father in 1867, and, by 1915, Franklin and his mother, Sara, had undertaken 

extensive renovations that included the addition of two large wings. The grounds that 

feature flower gardens, outbuildings, and miles of walking trails. The Rose Garden contains 

the graves of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Exhibit 4-29 summarizes the publicly owned acreage within the National Memorial, the National 

Natural Landmark, the National Wildlife Refuge, the National Historic Sites, and the federal 

preserves within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas. 

These are all potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources.

Exhibit 4-29—National Memorials, National Natural Landmarks, National Wildlife Refuges, and 

National Historic Sites and Preserves within Study Area 

Name County

Acreage within 2,000-foot-wide 

study area Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

6(f) 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

General Grant National 

Memorial New York 0.8 0.8 X X

Federal Land within Hudson 

Highlands State Park Putnam 0.4 0.4 X X

Vanderbilt Mansion 

National Historic Site Dutchess 143 143 X X

Franklin D Roosevelt Home 

National Historic Site Dutchess 82 82 X X

Federal Land within 

Schodack Island State Park Greene 24 24 X X

Moss Island National 

Natural Landmark Herkimer 15 X X

Montezuma National 

Wildlife Refuge Wayne 1 (556*) X X

Hart’s Woods Monroe ** X X

Bergen Swamp Genesee *** X X

*/ One acre of the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge is in the study area, 556 acres of the Approved Acquisition Area for the refuge is in 

the study area.

**/ Total acreage for Hart’s Woods is 10 acres, a portion of which is in the study area.

***/ Total acreage for Bergen Swamp is 2,000 acres, a portion of which is in the study area.

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York State GIS Clearinghouse

147/ National Park Service. “The National Parks: Index 2009-2011, Part 2, Listing of National Park System Areas by State.” Accessed 

March 28, 2011. <http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps/nps/part2.htm>.

Page 4-176 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

State Parks and Recreation Areas

New York State has multiple programs for land conservation and preservation on property that is 

managed and/or owned by the state. The state has designated state parks, areas of cultural and 

historic significance (state/urban heritage areas), state historic parks, and state historic sites that 

are administered by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. New 

York state forests (including multiple use areas, unique areas, and state nature and historic 

preserves) and state-owned Wildlife Management Areas are administered by the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation. 

• New York State Heritage Areas System (formerly known as the Urban Cultural Park 

System) is a state-local partnership established to preserve and develop areas that have special 

significance to New York State. The purpose of the program is to develop, preserve, and 

promote the state’s cultural and natural resources as an expression of the state’s heritage. 

Established in 1982 as joint venture between the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and 

Historic Preservation and 22 historically significant communities, the UCP Program 

incorporates Regional Heritage Corridors/Areas and Urban Heritage Areas in communities 

ranging in size from sprawling New York City to charming small-towns.

There are two regional heritage corridors, the Western Erie Canal Heritage Corridor and the

Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor along the program area. There are six smaller Urban 

Heritage Areas within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline:

o Harbor Park Heritage Area (Bronx County)

o Ossining Heritage Area (Westchester County)

o Albany Heritage Area (Albany and Rensselaer)

o Schenectady Heritage Area (Schenectady County)

o Rochester-High Falls Heritage Area (Monroe County)

o Niagara Falls Underground Railroad Heritage Area (Niagara)

• The State Parks System managed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and 

Historic Preservation includes state parks, state historic parks and state historic sites that are 

open to the public as tourist attractions. State parks include the Old Erie Canal State Park in 

Onondaga County (Mileposts 278.3 to 279), Madison County (Mileposts 266.5 to 272), and 

Oneida County. This is a 36-mile stretch of the 363-mile Old Erie Canal, which has been 

designated a National Recreational Trail by the National Parks Service. This and other state 

parks, state historic parks, and historic sites within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for both 

the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas are listed in Exhibit 4-30, along with their potential Section 

4(f)/Section 6(f) status. 

• State Forests in New York State encompass many legally defined classifications of lands 

outside the Forest Preserve of Adirondack and Catskill Parks that include land parcels acquired 

under several Bond Acts. State Forests are under the administration of the New York 

Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests and include four land 

classifications, but only two types: Unique Areas and state nature and historic preserves 

are present within the study area. Unique Areas are defined as parcels of land owned by the 

state that were acquired due to its special natural beauty, wilderness character, or for its 

geological, ecological or historical significance for the state nature and historical preserve, and 

may include lands within a forest preserve county outside the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. 

The NYSDEC state forests preserves and unique areas within 1,000 feet of the corridor 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-177

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Exhibit 4-30—NYSOPRHP State Parks, State Park Preserves, State Historic Sites

Facility Name Facility Type County/City

Acreage in 

Study Area

Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

90/110 125 6(f)

Hudson River Park State Park Manhattan 0.1 0.1 X

Riverbank State Park State Park New York 26 26 X X

Philipse Manor Hall State Historic Site Westchester 0.3 0.3 X

Old Croton Aqueduct State Historic Park Westchester 18 18 X X

Rockefeller State Park Preserve State Park Westchester 153 153 X

Hudson Highlands State Park State Park Preserve Westchester 204 204 X

Hudson Highlands State Park State Park Preserve Putnam 322 322 X

Hudson Highlands State Park State Park Preserve Dutchess 398 398 X

underwater State Park State Park Putnam 19 19 X

Walkway over the Hudson State 

Park

State Park Dutchess 0.3 0.3 X

Quiet Cove Riverfront Park Other Dutchess 32 32 X

Margaret Lewis Norrie State Park State Park Dutchess 234 234 X X

Staatsburgh State Historic Site State Historic Site Dutchess 1 1 X X

Ogden Mills and Ruth Livingston 

Mills Memorial State Park

State Park Dutchess 224 224 X X

Clermont State Historic Site State Historic Site Dutchess 0.1 0.1 X

Clermont State Historic Site State Historic Site Columbia 152 152 X

Olana State Historic Site State Historic Site Columbia 74 74 X

Conservation Easement (adjoining 

Olana site)

State Historic Site Columbia 103 103 X

Building envelope (adjoining 

Olana site)

Conservation 

easement

Columbia 7 7 X

Hudson River Islands State Park State Park Columbia 11 11 X

Schodack Island State 

Park(undeveloped)

State Park Columbia 14 14 X X

Schodack Island State 

Park(undeveloped)

State Park Greene 9 9 X X

Schodack Island State 

Park(undeveloped)

State Park Rensselaer 185 185 X X

Lock 9 State Canal Park Canal Park Schenectady 16 0 X X

Guy Park State Historic Site Montgomery 2 0 X

Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site Montgomery 18 0 X X

Herkimer Home State Historic Site Herkimer 33 0 X

Oriskany Battlefield State Historic Site Oneida 5 0 X X

Old Erie Canal State Historic Park State Historic Park Madison 185 45 X X

Old Erie Canal State Historic Park State Historic Park Onondaga 94 12 X X

State Fairgrounds State Recreation Area Onondaga 85 85 X

State Park at the Fair Other Onondaga 1 0.7 X

Whirlpool State Park State Park Niagara 6 6 X X

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment 

and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation and NYS GIS Clearinghouse

Page 4-178 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

centerline for both the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas are shown in Exhibit 4-31, one of which 

has received Section 6(f) funding .

• Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are lands owned by New York State under the control 

and management of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Division 

of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. These lands have been acquired primarily for the 

production and use of wildlife. However, while fishing, hunting and trapping are the most 

widely practiced activities on many WMAs, they are not limited to these activities. Most WMAs

Exhibit 4-31—New York State DEC Lands

Facility Name County/City

Acreage within 2,000-

ft.-wide

Study Area Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

6(f) 90/110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

Tivoli Bay Wildlife Management Area Dutchess 412 412 X X

Middle Ground Flats Unique Area Greene 9.0 9.1 X

Middle Ground Flats Unique Area Columbia 1.3 1.3 X

Hudson River at Germantown Columbia * * X

Stockport Flats Tidal Wetland Columbia 31 31 X

Rogers Island Wildlife Management Area Columbia 90 90 X

Hudson State Boat Launch Columbia 0.2 0.2 X

Stockport Flats Wildlife Management 

Area Columbia 230 230 X

Nutton Hook Tidal Wetland Columbia 292 292 X

Albany Pine Bush State Unique Area Albany 138 124 X X

Nelliston Boat Launch Site Montgomery * X

Plantation Island Wildlife Management 

Area (Lock 18 WMA) Herkimer 50 X

Oriskany Flats Wildlife Management 

Area Oneida 265 X

Rome State Wildlife Management Area Oneida 269 X

Carpenter’s Creek Fisherman’s Access Onondaga 0.4 X

Northern Montezuma Wildlife 

Management Area Cayuga 75 X

Northern Montezuma Wildlife 

Management Area Wayne 184 X

Tillman Road Wildlife Management Area Erie 20 X

*Site is a boat launch , acreage is not available

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long 

Empire Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing 

Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the 

corridor centerline.

Source: New York State GIS Clearinghouse, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-179

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

also provide good opportunities for hiking, cross-country skiing, birdwatching, or quiet 

enjoyment of nature. The WMAs within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for both the 

90/110 and the 125 Study Areas are shown in Exhibit 4-31, one of which has received Section 

6(f) funding.

County/Municipal Parks and Recreation Areas

There are roughly 100 county, municipal and non-profit parks identified within the study area. 

Twelve county-owned parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline of the 

90/110 Study Area, of which two have received federal Land and Water Conservation Funding, as 

shown in Exhibit 4-32. Four of the county parks are located in Westchester County. Within the 125 

Study Area, only eight county owned parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor 

centerline, one of which is not within the 90/110 Study Area.

Ninety-four municipal parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline of the 

90/110 Study Area, and of these, 27 have received Land and Water Conservation Funds. Within the 

125 Study Area, eighty-four parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline, of 

which twenty-two have received Land and Water Conservation Funds. More than half of these 

municipal parks are located in the more densely populated counties closer to New York City. Fifty 

parks (including one non-profit park) are located in New York, Bronx, Westchester, and Dutchess 

Counties. 

Exhibit 4-32—County Parks within 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline

Park County

Study Area Acreage Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

6(f)

90/110 

Study Area

125 Study 

Area

Lenoir Preserve (County Park) Westchester 9 9 X

Kingsland Point County Park Westchester 16 16 X

Croton Point County Park Westchester 11 11 X

Oscawana County Park (undeveloped) Westchester 80 80 X

Bowdoin County Park Dutchess 105 105 X X

Papscanee Island County Nature 

Preserve Rensselaer 169 169 X

Bergen Park Montgomery 2.4* X

Onondaga Lake County Park Onondaga 24 24 X X

Black Brook County Park Wayne 17 X

Blue Cut County Nature Center Wayne 20 X

Swift Landing County Park Wayne 23 X

Churchville County Park Monroe 72 X X

DeWitt County Recreational Facility Genesee 116 X

*/ Bergen Park is approximately 2.4 acres and the entire park is within the 90/110 Study Area.

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: New York State GIS Clearinghouse, LWCF website: <http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm>

Page 4-180 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-33—Number of Municipal and Non-Profit Parks with 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline 

County

Municipal Parks within 

1,000 feet

Potential Section 6(f) 

Parks

Potential Section 4(f) 

Parks

90/110 Nonprofit

Study 

Area

125 Study 

Area

90/110 

Study 

Area

125 Study 

Area

90/110 

Study 

Area

125 Study 

Area

New York 12 12 5 5 12 12

Bronx 4 4 1 1 4 4

Westchester 20 20 6 6 20 20 1

Putnam 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dutchess 12 12 3 3 12 12

Columbia 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

Rensselaer 0 0 0 0 0 0

Albany 7 8 2 1 7 8

Schenectady 6 0 1 0 6 0

Schoharie 0 0 0 0 0 0

Montgomery 3 0 1 0 3 0

Herkimer 2 1 1 0 2 1

Oneida 0 1 0 0 0 2 1

Madison 1 0 1 0 1 0

Onondaga 2 2 1 1 2 2

Cayuga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wayne 1 0 0 0 1 0

Monroe 7 9 2 2 7 9

Genesee 3 0 0 0 3 0

Erie 6 7 2 2 6 7

Niagara 7 7 1 1 7 7

TOTAL 94 84 27 22 94 84 3

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: New York State GIS Clearinghouse, New York State Office of Park, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and National Park 

Service LWCF website: < http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm>

4.16.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe impacts to parks and recreational resources. Review of aerial mapping 

indicates that the Base Alternative and Alternatives 90A and 90B would have minimal impacts to 

parklands and little or no impacts to parklands outside of the right-of-way. These alternatives 

would largely involve work within the right-of-way, with tracks being added in the location of the 

former track beds or existing access roads. The proposed work will include the addition of track, as 

well as maintenance service roads in selected areas. This preliminary assessment is based on Tier 1 

concepts and mapping and will be further refined in Tier 2 as the project development process is 

further advanced, and efforts to avoid parkland encroachments will be made as design is advanced.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-181

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

against and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative 

will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in 

track and station infrastructure. Because proposed work with this alternative is anticipated to be 

located entirely within the right-of-way, no land acquisitions are anticipated, no impacts to 

parklands are anticipated.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. It is 

anticipated that work could be contained within the right-of-way, and no impacts on parklands are 

anticipated. 

In Niagara County, Alternative 90A passes near two municipal parks, Gratwick Riverside Park from 

MPs QDN16 to QDN17, and Marios Park at MP QDN19; however, no impacts to these parks are 

anticipated since all work is within the existing rail right-of-way at these locations.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and parkland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Improvements for Alternative 90B start at MP 160 in the City of Schenectady, which is within an 

urban area that extends west to MP 168. With Alternative 90B, trackwork would start at MP 160 

and extend west from here, crossing over the Mohawk River/Erie Canal on an existing bridge. In 

the City of Schenectady, Front Street Park and Pool adjoins the south side of the railroad on the 

south river bank, and the Glenville Bike Trail extends under the bridge on the north river bank, but 

impacts to the park and trail are not anticipated. The potential for impacts to this area would be 

evaluated once more detailed designs are advanced in Tier 2. Further set back on the southwest 

side are Riverside Park in Schenectady and Collins Park and Lake in Scotia. At MP 167, the railroad 

extends north of the Lock 9 Canal Park, which is on the opposite (southwest side) of Route 5, but 

will not impact the park. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way may occur at Amsterdam Station and at MPs 179, 

Page 4-182 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

192, and 200 in Montgomery County. Proposed track and station improvements at Amsterdam 

Station and trackwork at MP 179 are located in the vicinity of the Erie Canal, but should not affect 

the canal. At MP 192, track realignment at a curve and a maintenance service road near MP 200 

would extend outside of the right-of-way, but would not affect parks or recreation facilities. 

Construction of a fourth track and maintenance service road in Herkimer County near the 

Montgomery County line (MPs 210.5 to 214.8) would not involve impacts to parklands. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way between MPs 234 to 238 around the Utica Station 

in Oneida County and around the Syracuse Station (MPs291 to 292, as addressed under Alternative 

90A) will be located within an urban area and will not affect parklands. New passenger track and a 

maintenance service road will be added in the areas north of the tracks adjoining Onondaga Lake 

County Park, but are not anticipated to affect parklands. In Wayne County, the addition of a 

maintenance service road may involve right-of-way impacts near MP 341, but this is not in the 

vicinity of parklands. In Monroe County, the addition of a fourth track around the Rochester Station 

could also involve right-of-way impacts (MPs 371 to 376 and MPs 378.2 to 378.6, and MPs 379.15 

to 379.6). This work will extend in the vicinity of facilities such as Upper Falls Park in the City of 

Rochester and will cross the Erie Canal and the Erie Canalway Heritage Trail at MP 374.5, but are 

not anticipated to directly affect parklands. The potential for impacts at the canal crossing will be 

evaluated as designs are advanced in Tier 2.

The addition of a fourth track at Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 431 to 432) would be located entirely 

within an urban area and will not affect parklands. Double track along the Niagara Branch between 

MPs QDN2 and QDN7 would extend in proximity to Front Park and La Salle Park in Buffalo, but no 

impacts outside the right-of-way are anticipated that could affect these parklands.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed, and additional parkland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, trackwork would start at MP 159 and extend west from here, crossing over 

the Mohawk River/Erie Canal on an existing bridge. In the City of Schenectady, Front Street Park 

and Pool adjoins the south side of the railroad on the south river bank, and the Glenville Bike Trail 

extends under the bridge on the north river bank, but impacts to the park and trail are not 

anticipated. The potential for impacts to this area would be evaluated once more detailed designs 

are advanced in Tier 2. Further set back on the southwest side are Riverside Park in Schenectady 

and Collins Park and Lake in Scotia. At MP 167, the railroad extends north of the Lock 9 Canal Park, 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-183

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

which is on the opposite (southwest side) of Route 5, but will not impact the park. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way may occur at Amsterdam Station and at other 

locations in Montgomery County. Proposed track and station improvements at Amsterdam Station 

and trackwork at MP 179 are located in the vicinity of the Erie Canal, but should not affect the canal. 

However, the proposed track, but would not affect parks or recreation facilities. 

Construction of a fourth track and maintenance service road in Herkimer County near the 

Montgomery County line (MPs 210.5 to 214.8) would not involve impacts to parklands. 

Work may extend outside of the right-of-way around the Utica Station in Oneida County and around 

the Syracuse Station, but will be located within urban areas and will not affect parklands. New 

passenger track and a maintenance service road will be added in the areas north of the tracks 

adjoining Onondaga Lake County Park, but are not anticipated to affect parklands. In Monroe 

County, the addition of a fourth track around the Rochester Station could also involve right-of-way 

impacts. This work will extend in the vicinity of facilities such as Upper Falls Park in the City of 

Rochester and will cross the Erie Canal and the Erie Canalway Heritage Trail at MP 374.5, but are 

not anticipated to directly affect parklands. The potential for impacts at the canal crossing will be 

evaluated as designs are advanced in Tier 2.

In Genesee County, Alternative 110 may impact a county park at MP 402. The proposed track 

alignment passes through the Dewitt County Recreational Facility in the Town of Batavia.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. Alternative 90A would 

largely be situated within the right-of-way and therefore would not involve substantial parkland 

impacts. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River. Since there are no parklands within this one-mile section of rail corridor, there are no 

additional impacts to parklands within Empire Corridor South.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a 

point 8.5 miles east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 extends through urban areas in Albany and 

Page 4-184 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Schenectady Counties over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I90) over most of this distance. 

Capital Hills Public Golf Course in Albany County is located immediately south of Alternative 125 

where it extends through the median of the New York State Thruway between MPs QH146 and 

QH147, but no impacts to the golf course are anticipated. At MP QH152, the New York State 

Thruway and Alternative 125 enter the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. At MP QH153, Alternative 125 

transitions off of the Thruway median and may impact the Albany Pine Bush Preserve at this 

location. At MP QH155, Alternative 125 may impact Fusco Town Park located directly to the south 

of the Thruway and the rail corridor. Direct impacts to parklands in Schenectady County are not 

anticipated for Alternative 125.

In Herkimer County, between MPs QH217 and QH218, Alternative 125 passes through a wooded 

area in Russell Park within the Town of German Flatts. 

In Oneida County, Alternative 125 passes just south of Washington Mills Athletic Park located west 

of Route 5 at MP QH230. This facility is approximately 250 feet from the new rail and no impacts to 

this park are anticipated with this alternative. Between MPs QH244 and QH245, Alternative 125 

also passes through Atunyote Golf Club, owned by the Oneida Nation, within the Town of Vernon. If 

Alternative 125 is advanced to Tier 2, design will be refined to minimize or avoid impacts on the 

Oneida Nation recreational use. 

Alternative 125 crosses Erie Canal State Park at three locations before meeting up with the existing 

rail corridor at MP 283 (just before MP QH269 in the 125 Study Area). The three Erie Canal State 

Park crossings are located between MPs QH260 and QH261; between MPs QH262 and QH263, both 

in Madison County; and between MPs QH265 and QH266 in Onondaga County.

In Onondaga County, the alignment merges with the existing Empire Corridor. Just before the 

merge, Alternative 125 crosses South Main Street in the village of Minoa and comes within a block 

of Lewis Park although no impacts to the park are anticipated. Alternative 125 extends through 16 

miles of urban area surrounding the City of Syracuse. Just west of the Syracuse station at MP 

QH278.5, Alternative 125 passes by Onondaga Lake County Park. The tracks would be on elevated 

structure above the existing tracks at this location, so right-of-way should be minimized. Before the 

alignment diverges from the existing Empire Corridor, Alternative 125 passes by the State 

Fairgrounds between MPs QH281 and QH282. No impacts to these parklands are anticipated since 

work within these areas is limited to the right-of-way. 

At MP QH284, Alternative 125 diverges from the existing Empire Corridor and continues on a new 

alignment 61 miles west to a point 11 miles east of Rochester Station in Monroe County. There are 

no impacts to parklands anticipated within these 61 miles of Alternative 125. 

In Monroe County, Alternative 125 passes just south of Beechwoods Park at MP QH344 but no 

impacts to the park are anticipated. Alternative 125 rejoins the existing Empire Corridor at MP 

QH346, diverging again at MP QH361, 5.5 miles west of Rochester Station, to continue on new 

alignment 52 miles west to Buffalo in Erie County. In Monroe County, close to the Genesee border, 

Alternative 125 passes near Churchville County Park at MP QH371. No additional impacts to 

parklands are anticipated for the remainder of the 125 Study Area from MP QH371 to where it 

merges back to the existing corridor at MP QH413 in Erie County. No impacts to parklands are 

anticipated to the end of the Empire Corridor West section at the Buffalo-Exchange Street station. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-185

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

In Erie County, just past MP QH408, Alternative 125 passes near Clarence Town Park, which may be 

impacted by this alternative. Between MPs QH408 and QH409, this alternative passes through the 

Tillman Road Swamp State Wildlife Management Area that may be impacted. 

4.16.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation for impacts on parklands and recreation areas will include avoiding and minimizing 

impacts to the extent practicable. Compliance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act requires that alternatives that avoid or minimize impacts be 

evaluated, and, if impacts are proposed, mitigation measures be developed, in consultation with 

officials with jurisdiction. If parklands that have received Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

grants will be converted, Section 6(f) requires that recreation property of equal fair market value 

and usefulness be provided as compensation.

Mitigation measures may include permanent measures, such as providing trail connections or 

compensatory parkland, or construction mitigation, such as maintaining trail or park access during 

construction or using time-of-year restrictions on construction work. Other considerations will 

include ameliorating potential visual and noise impacts on adjoining parks or recreation areas, and 

further assessments of these impacts and mitigation measures will also be advanced in Tier 2.

4.16.6. Future Analysis

The Tier 2 assessments will include a thorough inventory of publicly owned parks and recreation 

facilities, as well as non-profit parklands that may be potentially affected. Detailed property 

mapping and information on the extent of public access, use and ownership for parks and 

recreation areas will be obtained. Consultation with public officials and property owners/officials 

with jurisdiction will be performed regarding the use of the parks/recreation areas and potential 

impacts and mitigation measures. For potential parkland impacts, the applicability of Section 4(f) 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation 

Act, and New York State parkland alienation requirements will be determined (see Section 4.23

addressing potential Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) resources). Officials with jurisdiction will be 

identified and consulted for potential Section 4(f) parklands to determine the potential applicability 

of Section 4(f). Those parklands for which Land and Water Conservation funds were expended will 

also be identified.

The extent of impact and use of Section 4(f) properties will be determined, , including the extent to 

which a “constructive use”, “temporary occupancy” of the property, or “de minimus impact” may 

occur, and potential impacts on Section 4(f) properties will be assessed. If a use of a Section 4(f) 

park or recreation property is determined to occur, a Section 4(f) Evaluation will be prepared and 

circulated as part of Tier 2. Further discussion of Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) evaluations is presented 

in Section 4.23, “Section 4(f)/Section 6(f).”

If a conversion of Section 6(f) parks or lands may occur, a Section 6(f) Evaluation will be prepared 

and circulated as part of Tier 2.

New York State places similar restrictions on all municipal parklands, which cannot be converted to 

a non-park use without prior approval from the New York State Legislature (referred to in New 

Page 4-186 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

York as parkland alienation). Further research will be performed to identify municipal parklands, 

and if a conversion may occur, requirements for legislative approval for parkland alienation will be 

identified as part of Tier 2. 

4.17. Visual Resources

4.17.1. Regulatory Context

The FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that evaluation of 

environmental impacts should include a consideration of aesthetics and design quality. Under the 

topic of aesthetic environment and scenic resources, the FRA NEPA guidance states that: “The EIS 

should identify any significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed 

environment.” 

4.17.2. Methodology

The assessment considers the visual impacts of high-speed rail trains for all viewer groups, 

including adjacent land users (views of the project) as well as high-speed train users (views from 

the train). The visual assessment has been developed through the use of readily available 

Geographic Information System (GIS) data sets and aerial imagery. Field visits have not been 

conducted to verify the data for the Tier 1 EIS due to the length of the corridor and numerous areas 

where there will be no change to the existing condition. The visual analysis considered views of 

and from the railroad. 

The visual characteristics of the existing view from and to the railroad, such as elevated structures, 

water crossings, and presence of trees and vegetated buffers and urban development, are identified. 

In addition, the assessment identifies those viewsheds for affected groups who would be sensitive 

to visual changes, such as residents, park users, and travelers along the major interstates crossing 

the proposed facility. The “Existing Conditions” section identifies sensitive receptors in the 

program area and characterizes the area in terms of built environment and natural environment. 

For the 125 Study Area, since the exact alignment would be further refined and defined in Tier 2, a 

more generalized assessment of viewsheds to and from the railroad was performed.

4.17.3. Existing Conditions

Views of and views from the program area were considered, although in many rural locations 

(particularly along Empire Corridor West) the railroad itself is not visible or a prominent visual 

element unless it follows highways, waterways, or other vantage points where there are adjoining 

uses. 

There are a number of designated scenic areas along the railroad where the railroad extends along 

the Hudson River, Erie Canal/Mohawk Valley, and Lake Erie/Niagara River. Key scenic areas 

include:

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-187

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Six Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance (Hudson Highlands, Estates District, Esopus/Lloyd, 

Ulster North, Catskill-Olana, Columbia-Greene North SASSs) in the study area are designated 

under the state’s coastal program, as described under Section 4.11, “Coastal Resources.”

• Three National Heritage Areas (Hudson River, Erie Canalway, and Niagara Falls), and 

numerous federal and state parks and wildlife refuges (described in Section 4.16, “Parks and 

Recreational Areas”). 

• The Hudson River has been designated as an American Heritage River, one of fourteen in the 

country, due to its rich history and substantial environmental recovery. The rail line between 

New York City and Albany generally parallels the Hudson River, in many areas within 300 feet 

of the river’s edge. The Hudson River is also designated by the state148 as a Hudson River 

Greenway Water Trail, and the Designated Hudson River Valley Greenway Trails is a system of 

park trails and also includes New York State Bike Route 9. 

• The Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District designated under Article 49 of the 

Environmental Conservation Law extends between Hyde Park (MP 80) and Germantown (MP 

140).

• The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway, a National Scenic Byway that follows the Erie Canal in a 

portion of Schenectady County, extends parallel and close to the Empire Corridor over a small 

portion of the corridor (0.2 mile) in the City of Schenectady.

• The Revolutionary Trail, a New York State designated scenic byway, generally parallels the 

rail corridor from the village of Scotia in Schenectady County to the City of Rome in Oneida 

County. 

• The U.S. Route 20 Scenic Byway, a New York State designated scenic byway, generally 

parallels a roughly 8.5-mile section of the 125 Study Area, where the scenic route originates in 

Duanesburg and extends west 108 miles.

• The Great Lakes Seaway Trail, a National Scenic Byway, is in the vicinity of the rail corridor 

as it extends from Buffalo north through Tonawanda to Niagara Falls.

Empire Corridor South

Views of the Railroad

The most prominent visual element within the seven counties along the Empire Corridor South is 

the Hudson River to the west of the tracks. The tracks generally follow the eastern shoreline of the 

Hudson River, although views of the river are cut off through some of the towns, industrial areas, 

and natural points of land, it visually unifies the 142-mile corridor. Views of the railroad in most 

locations along the Empire Corridor South where it follows the eastern bank of the Hudson River 

are more prominent from bridges and other points on the river, as the railroad forms an integral 

linear element of the landscape where it borders along the river’s edge. The railroad is prominently 

visible along the west river bank from major bridges, including:

• The Tappan Zee Bridge (I-287), 

• The Newburgh-Beacon Bridge (I-84), 

148/ Hudson River Valley Greenway Act of 1991. New York State Legislature. Revised July 2007. Accessed May 10, 2012. 

<http://www.hudsongreenway.ny.gov/Libraries/PDF_s/GreenwayAct_Legislation_revised_as_of_July_2007__2011.sflb.ashx> 

Page 4-188 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• The Bear Mountain Bridge (U.S. Routes 202/6), 

• The Mid-Hudson Bridge (U.S. Route 44 and State Route 55), 

• The Kingston-Rhinecliff-Bridge (State Route 199), 

• The Rip Van Winkle Bridge (State Route 23), 

• The Castleton Bridge (Berkshire Connector of the New York State Thruway), and 

• A major pedestrian bridge at the Walkway over the Hudson (a former rail bridge). 

The railroad itself is a particularly prominent visual element in the landscape where it crosses 

waterways on bridge structures and causeways. The Spuyten-Duyvil Bridge swing span bridge 

over the Harlem River, the rail bridges over Croton Bay and Peekskill Bay, the New Hamburg 

Railroad Bridge over the Wappinger Creek, and the Livingston Avenue swing span over the Hudson 

River are several of the notable and largest bridge crossings along the Empire Corridor South. 

Because of the extensive width of the Hudson River along the railroad, where it extends along the 

riverbank, the railroad is most visible from the opposite river bank when trains are passing. Where 

the railroad extends inland, it is visible only from adjoining roadways and developments. Even in 

some of the more densely populated areas, such as New York City, the views of the railroad can be 

obscured by its location in tunnels, its location in cuts, or by vegetation particularly where the 

railroad extends along the river’s edge. 

Views from the Railroad

The detailed county by county description of views from the railroad is presented in Appendix G.12. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (90/110 Study Area/125 Study Area)

Views of the Railroad

The predominant landscape types along the majority of Empire Corridor West are farmlands and 

forestland. The views of the railroad in the thirteen or fourteen counties along the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch (for both the 90/110 Study Area and the 125 Study Area) are limited to some 

degree since this area, outside the cities and towns along the corridors, is predominantly rural 

agricultural. 

Vantage points of the railroad are limited to adjoining roads or developments. Outside of urbanized 

areas, the railroad is visible where it parallels or crosses portions of the New York State Canal 

System and the New York State Thruway (I-90). The canals and/or thruway parallels or crosses the 

Empire Corridor West through portions of Albany County, Schenectady County, Montgomery 

County, Herkimer County, Utica County, Onondaga County, and Cayuga County. The canals also 

parallel or cross the railroad several times in Wayne and Monroe Counties. Route 5 also parallels 

or crosses the railroad in portions of Albany, Schenectady, Montgomery, and Herkimer Counties 

and becomes Route 49 in Oneida County. In many locations, even where the railroad adjoins these 

features, existing views of the railroad tracks from adjoining roadways, canals, and development 

are obscured by vegetation. The majority of the landscape is relatively flat, particularly in rural 

agricultural areas, and the railroad tracks may only be visible when trains are passing, particularly 

in areas where vegetation screens the right-of-way from view. 

In Erie and Niagara Counties, the railroad extends close to Lake Erie and Niagara River, and is an 

integral element of the waterfront in these locations. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-189

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

 Several of the notable bridges where the railroad is more visible include the Mohawk River in 

Schenectady, Barge Canal along the south side (outlet to) Onondaga Lake, and the bridge over 

Canada Creek, the bridge over the Montezuma Marshes near Savannah, and the Genesee River 

Bridge in Rochester. Where these bridges are in remote locations (Montezuma Marshes) or are 

constructed at close to the existing grade, they may not necessarily be a prominent visual element 

of the landscape to users. However, even where views of the railroad are obscured from view by 

vegetation, the tracks are visible at overpassing roadway bridges, and the rail bridges are visible at 

underpassing roadways.

Views from the Railroad: 90/110 Study Area

The detailed county by county description of views from the railroad is presented in Appendix G.12. 

Views from the Railroad: 125 Study Area

The detailed county by county description of views from the railroad is presented in Appendix G.12. 

4.17.4. Environmental Consequences

Visual impacts will be minimal under the Base Alternative and Alternatives 90A and 90B. These 

alternatives would largely involve work within the right-of-way, with tracks being added in the 

location of the former track beds or existing access roads. The proposed work will include the 

addition of track, as well as maintenance service roads in selected areas. Alternative 110 will 

involve a greater degree of visual impacts extending outside of the right-of-way, and Alternative 

125 would involve the greatest visual impacts, with a new, grade-separated, electrified corridor 

(with overhead catenary) between Albany-Rensselaer Station and Buffalo. This preliminary 

assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and will be further refined in Tier 2 as the 

project development process is further advanced, and efforts to avoid and mitigate visual impacts 

will be made as design is advanced.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight 

improvements in track and station infrastructure. 

Because proposed work with this alternative is anticipated to be located entirely within the rightof-way, no substantial changes to views from or to the railroad are anticipated. With the proposed 

track and signal improvements, the appearance of railroad facilities will not substantially change, 

and views from the railroad should not change. There are five Scenic Areas of Statewide 

Significance in the vicinity of Base Alternative improvements. As described in detail under Section 

4.11.4 (“Coastal Resources”), no changes in the visual quality of these SASSs will occur as a result of 

the Base Alternative. 

The station building improvements at the Schenectady, Rochester, and Niagara Falls stations will 

improve the appearance of these outdated facilities, and the Niagara Falls Intermodal Station will 

also be relocated from an industrial area to the former custom house in downtown Niagara Falls at 

Page 4-190 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

the Canadian border, approximately one mile to the west. This will represent a visual improvement 

for passengers, tourists, and residents.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. 

It is anticipated that work could be contained within the right-of-way, and, for the most part, for 

track and signal improvements, no significant changes in the visual appearance of railroad facilities, 

or views from the railroad, are anticipated. There are six Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance in 

the vicinity of Alternative 90A improvements. As described in detail under Section 4.11.4 (“Coastal 

Resources”), no changes in the visual quality of these SASSs would occur as a result of Alternative 

90A. 

New station buildings would be constructed at Amsterdam and Buffalo-Depew stations. These 

station improvements proposed under Alternative 90A are anticipated to improve the appearance 

of these antiquated, outdated facilities. Replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge may also 

change the appearance of this crossing. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and visual impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The additional track improvements would involve a nominal change in the appearance of the 

railroad, where areas of third and fourth track are proposed to be added, as an additional third or 

fourth track will likely not be highly visible. In many locations, the tracks are not visible from 

adjoining properties or vantage points, unless the trains are running on them, or the right-of-way is 

screened by vegetation, buildings, or slopes. The views from the tracks should not change 

markedly with the proposed improvements. However, the additional tracks may involve clearing of

forest, or property changes/impacts, which may change views to and from the tracks. There would 

also be more frequent service than for the Base Alternative (although the same frequency of service 

as Alternative 90A), and trains running on the new tracks would be closer to adjoining properties. 

Also, modifications to some bridges may be required, which could involve nominal changes in the 

appearance of the affected crossings.

The Revolutionary Trail Scenic Byway (Route 5/29) extends alongside the length of the Empire 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-191

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Corridor and the Mohawk River/Erie Canal from Route 5 in Schenectady County to Herkimer, then 

follows Route 5S and the Erie Canal to Utica and continues northwest along Route 49 and the Erie 

Canal to Rome in Oneida County. Portions of Route 5 would need to be relocated, however, the 

scenic qualities of the byway would not be affected by Alternative 90B. 

Alternative 90B proposes three flyovers along the corridor, at MP 279, MP 366, and MP 427. The 

first flyover (MP 279) would extend through lightly forested and rural agricultural land, with 

scattered residences set back at least 500 feet and an at-grade road crossing set back 700 feet. 

Currently it is not known how tall or extensive the flyovers will be, but this would introduce a new 

visual element that may not be visible from the closest houses, depending on the lateral and vertical 

extent of the structure. 

The second flyover (MP 366) is surrounded by lightly forested land, with residential areas just a 

few hundred feet southwest of the existing railroad and parkland to the north. This flyover will be 

situated north of the I-490 & 441 interchange. Depending on the height of the flyover, the flyover 

may be visible from residential areas and the adjoining parkland, and would introduce a new visual 

element that would be more prominent than the at-grade railroad. 

Only the 90B Alternative will have a flyover at MP 427, one mile west of the Buffalo-Lancaster 

Airport. The views from the railroad would primarily be open fields and industrial uses, such as 

manufacturing and distribution plants. This would introduce a new visual element, but the affected 

area is primarily industrial or undeveloped. The railroad is set back approximately 1,000 feet from 

Walden Avenue, to the north, thereby limiting views from residential properties. Double track 

along the Niagara Branch between MPs QDN2 and QDN7 is proposed, but is anticipated to be 

contained within the right-of-way in this heavily urbanized area.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed, and additional parkland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Similar to Alternative 90B, the additional track improvements would involve a nominal change in 

the appearance of the railroad, where areas of third and fourth track are proposed to be added, as 

an additional third or fourth track will likely not be highly visible. In many locations, the tracks are 

not visible from adjoining properties or vantage points, unless the trains are running on them, or 

the right-of-way is screened by vegetation, buildings, or slopes. The views from the tracks should 

not change markedly with the proposed improvements. However, the additional tracks may 

involve clearing of forest, or property changes/impacts, which may change views to and from the 

Page 4-192 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

tracks. Compared to Alternative 90A, Alternative 110 would involve third tracks that would be 

offset an additional 15 feet from the existing tracks, for a total offset of 30 feet, so Alternative 110 

may involve additional clearing and property impacts and may be more visible than Alternative 

90B. There would also be more frequent service than for the Base Alternative (although the same 

frequency of service as Alternative 90B) and trains running on the new tracks would be closer to 

adjoining properties. Alternative 110 would also involve a greater length of fourth track, compared 

to Alternative 90A. In addition, Alternative 110 would involve more modifications to some bridges 

than Alternative 90A, which could involve nominal changes in the appearance of the affected 

crossings.

The Revolutionary Trail Scenic Byway (Route 5/29) extends alongside the length of the Empire 

Corridor and the Mohawk River/Erie Canal from Route 5 in Schenectady County to Herkimer, then 

follows Route 5S and the Erie Canal to Utica and continues northwest along Route 49 and the Erie 

Canal to Rome in Oneida County. Portions of Route 5 would need to be relocated, however, the 

scenic qualities of the byway would not be affected by Alternative 90B. 

Alternative 110 proposes two flyovers along the corridor, at MP 279 and MP 366 (same as the ones 

proposed in 90B). The first flyover (MP 279) would extend through lightly forested and rural 

agricultural land, with scattered residences set back at least 500 feet and an at-grade road crossing 

set back 700 feet. Currently it is not known how tall or extensive the flyovers will be, but this would 

introduce a new visual element that may not be visible from the closest houses, depending on the 

lateral and vertical extent of the structure. 

The second flyover (MP 366) is surrounded by lightly forested land, with residential areas just a 

few hundred feet southwest of the existing railroad and parkland to the north. This flyover will be 

situated north of the I-490 & 441 interchange. Depending on the height of the flyover, the flyover 

may be visible from residential areas and the adjoining parkland, and would introduce a new visual 

element that would be more prominent than the at-grade railroad. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River. This would introduce a new visual element and a new crossing of the Hudson River, but the 

area affected is primarily industrial or undeveloped.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-193

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively, and along the section approaching Buffalo Exchange Street. In these sections, the 

track would be elevated. Alternative 125 will be an electrified corridor between Albany and 

Buffalo, with overhead catenary, which may be more visible from adjoining properties and roads. 

This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a point 8.5 miles 

east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 extends through urban areas in Albany and Schenectady 

Counties over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) over most 

of this distance. Along five areas of Alternative 125, covering a total of 66 miles, it is assumed that 

grade separation will be achieved by elevating the tracks above the existing grade on a combination 

of embankment and elevated structures. For estimating purposes, it is assumed that 37.5 miles of 

viaduct structure will be required to achieve grade separation. Included in the five areas is a 

stretch of corridor that will likely have grade separated structures to traverse the local terrain, but 

it is not yet known where, only that they will exist. These elevated portions of the corridor would 

likely represent new visual elements that would be more prominent to adjoining uses.

Alternative 125 would introduce a new visual element where the route would extend on a new 

alignment. In these locations, it would have a more substantial visual effect than Alternatives 90B 

and 110, which would involve improvements to the existing railroad. However, the majority of the 

areas traversed are rural and agricultural, and the views of the new facility would be limited largely 

to adjoining properties or crossroads, which are described under “Existing Conditions” (see 

Appendix G.12). As is the case for the existing railroad, views of and from the tracks may be 

screened to some degree by trees and vegetated buffers. Although the tracks themselves may not 

be visible from adjoining properties, depending on the degree of screening and slopes and adjoining 

development, unless trains are running on the tracks, the overhead catenary may be more visually 

prominent. 

As described under “Existing Conditions,” the new alignment for the Alternative 125 would involve 

far fewer crossings of interstate highways and the New York State Barge Canal System or urban 

areas than the existing railroad. New bridges that may be required to carry the railroad over/under 

roadways may be more prominent visually, and new bridges over rivers/canals would introduce a 

new river crossing that may be more visible than the tracks at-grade.

Alternative 125 mph would cross and extend alongside an 8.5-mile section of the U.S. Route 20 

Scenic Byway, a National Scenic Byway, in Schenectady and Schoharie Counties. This would 

introduce a new visual element to the byway, but would affect a very small proportion of the entire

108-mile driving route. 

The five general locations where elevated sections would be required for Alternative 125, are 

described in the following section. Where the alignment rejoins the Empire Corridor, most of the 

areas consist of more densely populated and urban areas, and Alternative 125 would be elevated 

above the existing tracks. Overhead catenary along this electrified corridor will be particularly 

visible in these sections.

The easternmost elevated section along the Alternative 125 extends between the City of Rensselaer 

(MP QH142) and MP QH162 in Schenectady County. Along this 20 mile section, it is assumed that 

grade separation will be achieved by elevating the tracks above the existing grade on a combination 

of embankment and elevated structures. For estimating purposes, it is assumed that ten miles of 

viaduct structure will be required to achieve grade separation. These viaduct sections are assumed 

Page 4-194 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

to be about 20 feet above existing grade. The heights of the non-structurally elevated sections are 

currently unknown, but the elevated section will be more visible from adjoining areas. In 

Rensselaer County (MPs QH42 to QH143), Alternative 125 would follow along the existing corridor 

centerline, but would be elevated. The elevated section along this mile would extend adjacent to 

residential and industrial uses, and Alternative 125 would cross industrial lands, where it extends 

towards the Hudson River on a new alignment. In Albany County (MPs QH143 to QH157), 

Alternative 125 would extend through industrialized waterfront, then would follow interstate 

highways between MP QH144, at the I-787 convergence with the New York State Thruway (I-87) 

(to MP QH145), and QH157 at the Schenectady county line. 

The elevated section of Alternative 125 will introduce a new visual element, however, most of the 

section extends along the median of the New York State Thruway (I-90/I-87), which is buffered by 

trees and has a wide median and right-of-way through the majority of this area. The last five miles 

extend into Schenectady County and outside the highway right-of-way, extending alongside I-90 to 

just west of the I-90 and I-88 interchange. Over the last three miles, the railroad will cross over and 

extend outside of the Thruway right-of-way, crossing through or adjacent to several residential 

neighborhoods, but also extending through undeveloped or commercial land uses.

Between Schenectady County (MP 165) and Syracuse, because of grade differences of the terrain, 

intermittent viaduct or elevated structures may be required, although these have not been 

identified in Tier 1. Since these structures are to span over local terrain, it is likely that they will not 

be in urban areas and are likely to be in more undeveloped or even industrial and residential areas.

They will present a new visual element that would be more visible, but specific locations would be 

identified as part of any Tier 2 analysis.

The third elevated section is between MPs QH268 to QH288 in Onondaga County and primarily 

runs along the existing Empire Corridor, where it extends through the City of Syracuse. This entire 

distance will likely be completely grade separated on viaduct or column structures, with 10 miles of 

elevated sections assumed on either side of the Syracuse Station. The railroad extends through 

rural agricultural and residential areas outside of the city and extends through increasingly 

urbanized and industrial/commercial areas in and around the City of Syracuse. The views along 

this section are largely residential and commercial, and would likely be more visible from the grade 

separated corridor than the current at-grade centerline. This would introduce a new visual element 

that would be more prominent in this urban area.

The fourth elevated section is where Alternative 125 rejoins the Empire Corridor and extends 

through the City of Rochester in Monroe County between MPs QH345 to QH361. Approximately ten 

miles around the Rochester station-stop were assumed to be completely grade separated on 

viaduct or column structures, about 20 feet above existing grade. The other six miles were assumed 

to be on embankment, the heights of which are currently unknown. The elevated section starts 

where Alternative 125 rejoins the Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area) at MP QH345.25 near the 

Fairport Village line. This elevated section would extend through increasingly urban areas entering 

the City of Rochester, where the viewshed is dominated by built up areas, and the railroad adjoins 

parking lots, businesses, industries with limited or no screening by trees. Alternative 125 will be 

more visible on the elevated tracks than the existing at-grade corridor, but adjoining areas are 

predominantly commercial or industrial uses or institutional uses. 

The fifth elevated section is between MPs QH420 to QH425, entirely along the last five miles of the 

Empire Corridor where it approaches the Buffalo Exchange Street Station. This section will be 

elevated on completely grade separated viaduct or column structures and will introduce a new 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-195

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

visual element that will be more visible than the current at-grade railroad. This section extends 

through heavily urbanized, industrialized areas (including the Frontier railyard and the Buffalo 

Terminal) that include higher density neighborhoods. In the downtown area, this elevated section 

would extend between commercial buildings on Exchange Street, to the north, and the elevated 

Niagara Thruway (I-190) structure, on the south. In this area, the elevated structure would mirror 

the adjoining Thruway bridge and would be less prominent.

4.17.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

The visual impacts of the program can be minimized through design of more visually prominent 

facilities, such as stations and bridges, to improve the aesthetic characteristics. In the area of canal 

crossings and historic parks, design of bridge abutments, retaining walls, and other structures can 

consider aesthetic treatments to be consistent with the park environs and setting. Use of vegetated 

buffers can effectively screen the rail facilities from adjoining areas where there is adequate room 

for plantings. Consultation with agencies with jurisdiction over the canals and parks would be 

performed, as appropriate, to obtain input into the development of improvement project design 

concepts.

4.17.6. Future Analysis

The Tier 2 analysis will consider the visual impact and characteristics in the planning and design of 

the facilities proposed. The focus would be on design of above ground facilities, which would be 

more visually prominent, such as elevated sections, flyovers, stations, and bridges, and areas of 

visual sensitivity, such as canal crossings, designated scenic areas and parks. The extent of impacts 

in designated scenic areas, such as the Hudson River Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance 

designated under the state coastal program, the Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District, 

and other scenic resources, such as designated scenic byways, will be determined based on the 

designs developed in Tier 2. Means of avoiding and minimizing visual impacts will be identified as 

part of this assessment, in consultation with agencies with jurisdiction.

The visual assessment would be a component of required environmental documentation and 

permits, such as a visual assessment of impacts on Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance as part of 

any required application for Coastal Zone Management Consistency (CZM) Certification. The CZM 

policies that apply to scenic resources are:

• Policy 24: Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance;

• Policy 25: Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources, which are not 

identified as being of statewide significance, but that contribute to the overall scenic quality of 

the coastal area.

If work is performed in the Hudson River SASS’s, any required CZM consistency determination 

would address the program’s consistency with the above coastal policies.

Page 4-196 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.18. Farmlands

4.18.1. Regulatory Context

Farmland protection is provided by the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). For the 

purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland and land of statewide importance. Protected 

farmland under FPPA is defined based on soil types and does not have to be currently used for 

cropland, but excludes urbanized areas. 

Prime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and 

oilseed crops and is available for these uses. It could be cultivated land, pastureland, forest land, or 

other land, but it is not urban or built-up land or water areas. It has the soil quality, growing 

season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when 

treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. 

Farmland of statewide importance is land other than prime farmland but that is also highly 

productive. This is land, in addition to prime farmland, that is of statewide importance for the 

production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. Generally, additional farmlands of 

statewide importance include those that economically produce high yields of crops when treated 

and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime 

farmland if conditions are favorable. 

The State of New York farmland protection program includes the Agricultural District Law 

(Agriculture and Markets Law- Article 25-AA enacted in 1971) that had resulted in the creation of 

341 agricultural districts containing approximately 21,500 farms (covering about 30% of the state) 

by April 2002. Land owners of large farms can apply for preferential tax treatment and protections 

as an agricultural district, as long as the district contains at least 500 acres within the county or the 

applicant(s) own at least 10 percent of the land to be included in the district. This protection also 

mandates that state agencies and local governments and public benefit corporations avoid or 

minimize impacts on farmland operations within agricultural districts for projects that may involve 

farmland acquisition or publicly funded construction. 

4.18.2. Methodology

Actively farmed areas were identified through review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009 

croplands and aerial photography. Federally protected prime farmland and farmland of statewide 

importance for study areas within 300 feet of the corridor centerline for all alternatives were 

characterized using available soil survey mapping. 

Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance were initially identified through review of 

soil survey mapping prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the 2010 

Census-defined urbanized areas were overlaid with this to exclude urbanized areas. The definition 

of farmland under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy regulations (7 CFR 658.2) states that 

“‘Farmland’ does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage. 

Farmland ‘already in’ urban development or water storage includes all such land with a density of 30 

structures per 40-acre area. Farmland already in urban development also includes lands identified as 

‘urbanized area’ (UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a ‘tint overprint’ on 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-197

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

the USGS topographical maps, or as ‘urban-built-up’ on the USDA Important Farmland Maps.”

The state-designated Agricultural Districts were identified using information obtained from the 

New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State GIS Clearinghouse. 

The districts for study areas within 300 feet of the corridor centerline for all alternatives were 

characterized, without consideration given to whether these districts were within Census-defined 

urban areas. 

Impact assessment focused on areas where design located tracks or maintenance service roads 

outside of the right-of-way, and aerial photos and protected farmland mapping were reviewed to 

identify potential farmland impacts in these locations.

4.18.3. Existing Conditions

Within the 90/110 Study Area, twenty counties contain approximately 4,015 acres of prime 

farmland within 300 feet of the corridor centerline, excluding urbanized areas (as defined by the 

2010 U.S. Census), as shown in Exhibit 4-34 and illustrated in Exhibit G-16 of Appendix G.13, which 

describes existing conditions for farmlands in more detail. An additional 1,984 acres of prime 

farmland, if drained and 2,040 acres of farmland of statewide importance are located in the nonurbanized portion of the study area. Approximately 3,668 acres of farmland within statedesignated Agricultural Districts are located within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. The 

majority of farmland within the study area, approximately 90 percent of prime farmland and 90 

percent of Agricultural Districts, are located along primarily rural areas along the Empire Corridor 

West and Niagara Branch west of (and including) Albany. 

Within the 125 Study Area, there are twenty-one counties with approximately 5,544 acres of prime 

farmland within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. An additional 3,377 acres of prime farmland, if 

drained, and 3,470 acres of farmland of statewide importance are located in the non-urbanized 

portion of the study area. Approximately 8,164 acres of farmland within state-designated 

Agricultural District are located within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. The majority of farmland 

within the 125 mph study area, approximately 93 percent of prime farmland and 95 percent of 

Agricultural Districts, are located along primarily rural areas along the Empire Corridor West and 

Niagara Branch west of (and including) Albany. Farmlands for both the 90/110 and the 125 Study 

Areas are described in the following sections. 

Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South extending north from (and including) New York through the Hudson 

Valley to Rensselaer County includes three urbanized counties. All of the Build Alternatives follow 

the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, deviating only in Rensselaer 

County, where Alternative 125 splits off 1.6 miles south of where the existing Empire Corridor 

turns to the west. The study area within the seven counties of Empire Corridor South contains 405 

acres of prime farmland (31 additional acres of prime farmland if drained), 393 acres of farmland of 

statewide importance, and 387 acres of Agricultural Districts. 

Page 4-198 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The Empire Corridor West and Niagara Branch extending west of (and including) Albany to Niagara 

Falls includes large tracts of agricultural land within the 600-foot-wide study area. The study area 

in the thirteen counties contains a total of 3,610 acres of prime farmland, an additional 1,952 acres 

of prime farmland if drained, and 1,647 acres of farmland of statewide importance. Approximately 

3,280 acres of the study area between (and including) Albany County and Niagara County are 

within state-designated Agricultural Districts.

Exhibit 4-34—Federally and State-Designated Farmlands in the 90/110 and 125 Study Areas

Counties Prime farmland 

soils (acres)

Prime farmland, if 

drained (acres)

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance (acres)

Agricultural 

Districts (acres)

90/110 

mph

125 

mph

90/110 

mph

125 

mph

90/110 

mph

125 

mph

90/110 

mph

125 

mph

New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bronx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Westchester 59 59 2 2 40 40 0 0

Putnam 9 9 1 1 1 1 0 0

Dutchess 120 120 21 21 233 233 113 113

Columbia 69 69 7 7 102 102 148 148

Rensselaer 148 148 0 0 17 17 126 126

Albany 8 64 0 0 26 89 0 0

Schenectady 163 56 0 403 39 263 12 159

Schoharie 132 104 79 25

Montgomery 484 56 6 770 88 488 610 1,078

Herkimer 328 216 4 286 19 460 159 82

Oneida 295 827 270 357 87 111 24 374

Madison 133 244 193 60 154 335 132 366

Onondaga 351 473 256 140 169 319 39 464

Cayuga 266 362 24 90 284 160 223 806

Wayne 609 1,246 138 298 268 271 1,004 2,214

Monroe 155 215 214 76 33 43 118 267

Genesee 755 1,002 463 427 338 369 650 1,476

Erie 60 243 332 283 133 80 225 384

Niagara 3 3 52 52 9 9 84 84

TOTAL 3,295 4,522 1,686 3,017 1,679 2,993 3,667 8,164

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long 

Empire Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing 

Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 300 feet of the 

corridor centerline. 

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York State GIS Clearinghouse

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-199

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The 125 Study Area follows a more direct route between Rensselaer and Buffalo, which bypasses 

several of the major metropolitan areas and stations sites (Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and

Rome) along the Empire Corridor West and extends through more rural and agricultural areas. 

Within the 600-foot wide study area of the 125 Study Area in the Empire Corridor West/Niagara 

Branch, there are fourteen counties containing a total of 5,139 acres of prime farmland, an 

additional 3,346 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 3,076 acres of farmland of statewide 

importance. Approximately 7,779 acres of the study area between (and including) Albany County 

and Niagara County are within state-designated Agricultural Districts.

4.18.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe impacts to mapped areas of prime farmland soils (including soils of 

statewide importance) and state-designated Agricultural Districts. However, review of aerial 

mapping indicates that the Base Alternative and Alternatives 90A and 90B would have minimal 

impacts to actively farmed areas and little or no impacts to active farms outside of the right-of-way. 

These alternatives would largely involve work within the right-of-way, with tracks being added in 

the location of the former track beds or existing access roads. The proposed work will include the 

addition of track, as well as maintenance service roads in selected areas. Alternative 110 may have 

isolated impacts to actively farmlands in one or more locations. Alternative 125 would involve 

greater impacts to farmland as it extends on new alignment through primarily rural areas. This 

preliminary assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and mapping and will be further refined in Tier 

2 as the project development process is further advanced, and efforts to avoid farmland 

encroachments will be made as improvement project designs are advanced.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight 

improvements in track and station infrastructure. 

Empire Corridor South

The Base Alternative includes signal and grade crossing improvements along the 64 miles of 

Empire Corridor South (MPs 75.8 to 140) north of Poughkeepsie to just south of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. In addition, this section of track crosses through urban areas not subject to protection as 

prime farmland in portions of Dutchess and Columbia Counties and a large part of Rensselaer 

County. Agricultural districts and areas of prime farmland are located proximal to the existing rail 

through this section, but this work will not involve substantial impacts outside of the right-of-way, 

and no impacts are anticipated. 

The Base Alternative will also involve the addition of a fourth track and platform extension at 

Rensselaer Station near the Albany county line (MPs 141 to 143), which is located entirely within 

an urban area and will not involve impacts to prime farmland or Agricultural Districts. 

Page 4-200 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The Base Alternative will involve 17 miles of second track between the Albany-Rensselaer and 

Schenectady stations, as well as reconstruction of the Schenectady Station. The affected portions of 

Albany and Schenectady Counties are designated as urban areas, and there are no Agricultural 

Districts along this portion of the railroad. 

Most of the proposed Syracuse track configuration and signal improvements are also located within 

urban areas, with the exception of four miles of third track in the easternmost part of Onondaga 

County and extending into Madison County. Work outside the right-of-way in this area for 

improvements has the potential to affect prime farmland, however there no Agricultural Districts 

along this segment. The work could largely be contained within the former track bed and the 

existing right-of-way. 

Rochester Station track and platform improvements (MPs 368 to 373) are entirely within 

designated urban areas and do not adjoin Agricultural Districts. This Base Alternative 

improvement will not impact protected farmland. Proposed improvements for the new Niagara 

Falls Intermodal Transportation Center will also be located within an urban area and will not 

impact protected farmland.

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described.

Empire Corridor South

Alternative 90A includes construction of 4 miles of second track through urbanized areas of 

Manhattan (MPs 9 to 13), and 1.4 miles of new track, extending under the Tappan Zee Bridge, for 

the Tarrytown Pocket Track/Interlocking. Both of these are located within designated urban areas 

and would not impact protected farmland. 

With Alternative 90A, signal improvements proposed along 43 miles (MPs 32.8 and 75.8) extend 

through urban areas (Westchester and Dutchess Counties) or limited areas of prime farmland 

(Putnam County). There is only one location close to an Agricultural District, but work could be 

contained within the right-of-way and no protected farmland impacts are expected. Along this 

section, 10 miles of new third track (MPs 53 to 63) and improvements at the Poughkeepsie 

Yard/Storage Facility (MPs 71 to 75.8) would be located within urban areas in Dutchess County. 

North of Poughkeepsie and south of Albany-Rensselaer Station (MPs 75.8 to 140), proposed 

improvements would include rock slope stabilization (MPs 105 to 130) and three new control 

points (CP 82, CP 99, and CP 136), as well as station improvements at Rhinecliff Station (high-level 

platforms) and Hudson Station (new Ferry Street Bridge and track realignments). It is anticipated 

that these improvements could occur largely within the right-of-way and would not impact 

protected farmland (as discussed under the Base Alternative). Alternative 90A includes 

replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which is in an urban area on both sides of the Albany 

County Line and would not impact protected farmland. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-201

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 90A, track improvements include approximately 10 miles of third track between 

MPs 169 and 178.5, and Amsterdam Station improvements along the west end of this segment. The 

western five miles of this segment extends through a designated urban area. The remaining five 

miles in eastern Montgomery County and extending into Schenectady County includes areas of 

prime farmland and extends close to Agricultural Districts in a few locations. However, this work 

could be contained within the existing right-of-way. Upgrades to interlockings and automatic block 

signals at three control points (CP 175, CP 239, and CP 248) will not affect prime farmlands or 

Agricultural Districts, as these are all located within urban areas. 

Alternative 90A includes Syracuse Station track improvements (MPs 290 to 294) and third track 

improvements along 11 miles (MPs 373 to 382) west of the station. These work areas in Syracuse 

and Rochester are entirely within designated urban areas and do not adjoin Agricultural Districts. 

These Alternative 90A improvements would not impact protected farmland. Further to the west, 

the addition of a third track along 11 miles located largely west of the designated urban area 

around Rochester, and work outside of the right-of-way may affect prime farmlands and 

Agricultural Districts. However, it is anticipated that the majority of the work could be located 

within the right-of-way. 

Station improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Station would be located within an urban area, and no 

Agricultural Districts are located in this area. Although the proposed double track (MPs QDN17 to 

QDN23.2) along the Niagara Branch is located within an urban area, work outside the right-of-way 

in this area may affect Agricultural Districts. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and farmland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Improvements for Alternative 90B start at MP 160 in the City of Schenectady, which is within an 

urban area that extends west to MP 168. The third track at the connection to the Selkirk Branch at 

MP 168.3 in Schenectady County may affect mapped areas of prime farmlands and borders on 

urban area, south of the railroad. There are no Agricultural Districts that would be affected. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way may occur at Amsterdam Station and at MPs 179, 

192, and 200 in Montgomery County. Proposed track and station improvements at Amsterdam 

Station and trackwork at MP 179 are located within urban areas. A maintenance service road near 

Page 4-202 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

MP 200 is also situated within a designated urban area. At MP 192, track realignment at a curve 

would extend outside of the right-of-way, but this is outside (but close to) prime farmlands and an 

Agricultural District. 

Construction of a fourth track and maintenance service road may affect a few prime farmlands in 

Herkimer County near the Montgomery County Line (MPs 210.5 to 214.8). A maintenance service 

road in this area (MPs 214.25 and 214. 75) may affect an Agricultural District. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way between MPs 234 to 238 around the Utica Station 

in Oneida County and around the Syracuse Station (MPs291 to 292, as addressed under Alternative 

90A) will be located within an urban area and will not affect prime farmlands or Agricultural 

Districts. In Wayne County, the addition of a maintenance service road may involve right-of-way 

impacts near MP 341, but this is in an urban area and will not affect Agricultural Districts. In 

Monroe County, the addition of a fourth track around the Rochester Station could also involve rightof-way impacts (MPs 371 to 376 and MPs 378.2-378.6, and MPs 379.15-379.6), but this area is 

entirely within an urban area and will not involve protected farmland impacts. 

In Genesee County, the addition of a third track and maintenance service road (MPs 397 to 397.5) 

may occur in close proximity to or may encroach on actively farmed fields that are part of an 

Agricultural District.

The addition of a fourth track at Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 431 to 432) and double track along 

the Niagara Branch (MPs QDN2 to QDN7) would be located entirely within an urban area and will 

not affect protected farmlands. 

There are also locations where relocations of adjoining roadways may result in indirect impacts to 

farmlands, but these locations would be better defined in Tier 2.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and farmland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, track realignments outside of the right-of-way would be required near MP 

165 in Schenectady County, but this would be located within an urban area and would not impact 

protected farmland. The connection of the third track to Selkirk Branch at MP 168 may affect 

mapped areas of prime farmlands and borders on an urban area, south of the railroad. There are no 

Agricultural Districts that would be affected. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-203

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Work extending outside of the right-of-way for construction of the third and fourth tracks and a 

maintenance service road at MP 182 in Montgomery County may affect prime farmlands and 

Agricultural Districts. West of the urban area around Fonda (west of MP 186.85) to MP 189.5, work 

outside of the right-of-way (maintenance service road and relocated freight track west to turnout at 

MP 187.8 and third track west of this point) may involve impacts to protected farmland and 

Agricultural Districts. However, most of the prime farmlands along this section are situated on the 

opposite (south) side of the tracks. Realignment of the third track at MP 192.5 and a maintenance 

service road (MPs 194 to 197) may affect prime farmland and Agricultural Districts. Relocation of 

Route 5, which closely borders this section of the Empire Corridor West, may indirectly affect 

farmland areas in this and other areas of Montgomery and Herkimer Counties. A maintenance 

service road that may extend outside of the right-of-way in certain areas between MPs 197 and 201 

and track realignments at MPs 198 and 199.3 are situated within a designated urban area. 

However, the track realignment at MP 199.3 may affect Agricultural Districts. Track realignment of 

the new/relocated freight tracks and the third track at MPs 205 and 206 may impact prime 

farmlands and Agricultural Districts in Montgomery County. 

In Herkimer County, the third track and maintenance service road may also affect prime farmlands 

at MPs 208.3 to 208.5 and between MPs 210 to 213. There are no Agricultural Districts in these 

areas that would be affected. West of MP 215, the remainder of the tracks in Herkimer County is 

located within an urban area. In this section, there are areas where the maintenance service road 

and in some locations, the proposed third track, may extend outside of the right-of-way (MP 215.5, 

where fourth track will be added, impacts could occur at MPs 218.5 to 219, MP 222, MPs 226.4 to 

228, and MPs 229 to 229.8). There are no Agricultural Districts along most of these areas, with the 

exception of the westernmost area. A maintenance service road in this last section (MPs 229 to 

229.8) that may extend along the edge of and outside the right-of-way may affect an Agricultural 

District and actively farmed fields. A maintenance service road and the proposed third track 

between MPs 230.4 to 230.9 may involve property takings and relocation of Route 5, indirectly or 

directly affecting an Agricultural District. Between MPs 231 and 235.3, near the Oneida County line, 

the addition of a maintenance road and the third track may cross out of the right-of-way in a 

number of locations, potentially affecting Agricultural Districts. 

In Oneida County, the addition of a third and fourth track and relocated freight track may extend 

outside of the right-of-way in the section between the county line and Utica Station, but this is 

within an urban area, and no Agricultural Districts abut the railroad. 

In Wayne County, the addition of a third track and maintenance service road may involve right-ofway impacts near MP 341, but this is in an urban area and will not affect Agricultural Districts. 

In Genesee County, the new/relocated freight mains north of the existing railroad and a 

maintenance service road may potentially affect farmlands. Prime farmlands, active farmfields, and 

structures, and Agricultural Districts may potentially be affected in the area between MPs 389 and 

395.

The proposed work in the vicinity of passenger stations at Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, and BuffaloDepew and addition of tracks near these sites are situated within urban areas and will not affect 

farmlands. 

Page 4-204 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 will be a “sealed” 

corridor with minimal crossings and therefore there may be potential accessibility impacts to active 

farming operations. Alternative 125 would include Alternative 90A improvements along the 

Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. Alternative 90A would be situated within the right-of-way and 

also would involve work within urban areas in many locations, and therefore is not anticipated to 

impact farmland. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River, but this is located entirely within designated urban area and would not impact farmland. 

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a 

point 8.5 miles east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 extends through urban areas in Albany and 

Schenectady Counties over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I90) over most of this distance. As the area is urban, there are no prime farmlands in this section, 

although the corridor extends close to or through Agricultural Districts in two isolated locations. 

West of the urban area, Alternative 125 extends through or close to eight Agricultural Districts in 

Schenectady County and one in Schoharie County. Alternative 125 in this area passes through 

farmlands of statewide significance, and prime farmlands are more limited and dispersed. 

Alternative 125 extends through Montgomery County, where Agricultural Districts cover most of 

the county along the corridor. The distribution of farmlands of statewide importance is much more 

dispersed, and there are limited occurrences of prime farmlands along the corridor in the county. 

In Herkimer County, Alternative 125 crosses only three Agricultural Districts, as well as two urban 

areas (over a distance of roughly 4 miles) surrounding Herkimer and Utica on the west. The 

distribution of farmlands of statewide importance is dispersed, with even fewer occurrences of 

prime farmland along the corridor. 

In Oneida County, Alternative 125 extends through roughly 11 miles of urban area surrounding 

Utica and Oneida on the west. Outside this urban area, Alternative 125 crosses prime farmland in a 

number of locations in the county. Alternative 125 also extends through 16 agricultural districts. 

In Madison County, Alternative 125 extends through roughly 8 miles of urban area surrounding 

Oneida and Canastota. Outside the urban area, the corridor crosses through prime farmlands and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-205

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

farmlands of statewide significance in this county. This alternative also crosses five larger 

Agricultural Districts, which encompass roughly 4 miles of the corridor. 

In Onondaga County, the alignment merges with the existing Empire Corridor. Alternative 125 

extends through 16 miles of urban area surrounding the City of Syracuse. Outside of the urban 

area, Alternative 125 diverges from the existing Empire Corridor and continues on a new alignment 

61 miles west to a point 11 miles east of Rochester Station. West of the Syracuse urban area, 

Alternative 125 passes through areas of prime farmland. Alternative 125 also crosses or adjoins at 

least 13 Agricultural Districts in the county, 

In Cayuga and Wayne Counties, Agricultural Districts extend along almost the entire length of 

Alternative 125. Two large Agricultural Districts, and one or two smaller districts, cover the entire 

length of the corridor of Cayuga County. At least 47 Agricultural Districts coincide with the corridor 

in Wayne County. The corridor also passes through areas of prime farmlands in both counties, 

although the western 2.5 miles in Wayne County extends through an urban area.

Alternative 125 extends almost entirely through urban areas in Monroe County (along 16 miles 

surrounding in the City of Rochester), where it merges with the existing Empire Corridor, diverging 

again 5.5 miles west of Rochester Station to continue on new alignment 52 miles west to Buffalo. 

West of the urban area, Alternative 125 passes through farmland on the remaining three miles on 

the west end of the county, passing through three Agricultural Districts and areas of prime 

farmland 

Alternative 125 extends through or adjacent to at least 25 Agricultural Districts and areas of prime 

farmland in Genesee County. In Erie County, Alternative 125 extends through one large 

Agricultural District that covers much of the 6 miles before the corridor enters the urban area. 

Alternative 125 continues 5.5 miles past the eastern edge of the urban area to merges back with the 

existing Empire Corridor/Niagara Branch. This urban area continues along the remainder of the 

corridor through Buffalo and Niagara Falls, so no farmland impacts are anticipated along this 

segment of the program. 

4.18.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

During Tier 2, refinements in design and mapping will be performed and the project development 

will incorporate avoidance and minimization of farmland impacts to the extent practicable. This 

will include avoidance of active farms, prime farmlands, and parcels included within Agricultural 

Districts to the extent practicable. The lower speed alternatives (Base and Alternatives 90A and 

90B) and those located along the existing Empire Corridor (Base, Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110) 

will result in lesser or no impacts on active farmlands. If Alternative 125 is selected, further design 

refinements will need to include avoidance and minimization during Tier 2. 

NYSDOT will need to comply with the Federal Farmland Policy Protection Act for acquisition of 

prime farmlands. Compliance with the State Agriculture and Markets law for work affecting a 

designated Agricultural District will also be required. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets will be consulted regarding 

farmland impacts and mitigation strategies that are appropriate. 

Page 4-206 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Potential farmland mitigation measures that can be developed in coordination with the 

federal/state agencies and landowners can include measures such as avoidance and minimization 

through design measures, such as use of steeper slopes, minimizing embankments, or relocating 

structures. Other potential mitigation measures that might be considered include installation of 

cattle (or other) animal crossings, improvements to an existing or creation of new farmland access 

road for farm equipment and vehicles, planting of windbreaks to protect crops from wind damage, 

reconfiguring any affected subsurface drainage or irrigation systems or otherwise improving 

drainage, and staging activities to occur at the end of harvest. Farmland conversion mitigation can 

include creating conservation easements on alternative farmland parcels or paying a fee to protect 

farmland. 

4.18.6. Future Analysis

Tier 2 assessments will refine the impact assessment based on design and site-specific mapping and 

delineation of existing and required rights-of-way. If significant conversions of prime farmland and 

impacts on state Agricultural Districts are anticipated in Tier 2, alternatives actions, locations, and 

designs will need to be further explored as part of Tier 2 design. If avoidance is not possible, 

measures to minimize or reduce the impacts should be evaluated, as discussed above.

If conversions of prime farmlands are anticipated to occur, in accordance with the Federal 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), a Farmland Conversion Rating Impact Rating will be 

prepared and submitted to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This will 

also require consultation with the State NRCS FPPA contact and a review of alternative actions that 

do not require farmland acquisition. Avoidance measures and appropriate mitigation would be 

determined in consultation with the agencies. 

During Tier 2, right-of-way mapping will be refined, and the respective county planning offices will 

be consulted to determine if land was added to an Agricultural District that is not included on the 

mapping. The Agriculture and Market Law, Article 25-AA, requires prior notice to the 

Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets for right-of-way acquisitions in an Agricultural District. 

The State Agriculture and Markets Law requires a Notice of Intent be prepared for acquisition of 

land in excess of 1 acre of actively operated farm in a designated Agricultural District or in excess of 

10 acres from within any one district. If required, a Preliminary and Final Notice of Intent (PNOI 

and FNOI) will be filed with the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets and the 

County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board(s). The FNOI includes a report justifying the 

proposed action including an evaluation of alternatives that would not require action within the 

Agricultural District. The Notice of Intent must address the anticipated short-term and long-term 

agricultural impacts of a project, including acreages and farms/districts affected, and mitigation 

measures proposed. After the FNOI is accepted by the NYS Agriculture and Markets, a certification 

by the Regional Director is required, certifying that NYSDOT has met the requirements of State 

Agriculture and Market Law, Section 305(4) and to the maximum extent practicable, adverse 

agricultural impacts revealed in the FNOI will be avoided, minimized and mitigated. The Notice of 

Intent process will be completed prior to right-of-way acquisition.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-207

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.19. Air Quality

By potentially altering the modal distribution of inter-city travel within New York State, the 

proposed action may affect ambient air quality throughout the program study area. Direct effects 

result from program sources, such as emissions from locomotives along the corridor, while indirect 

effects are a result of emissions generated by non-program sources, such as vehicles traveling to 

stations and reduced auto travel in the region. When combined, the net change in emissions due to 

a large program such as the proposed action can also impact area-wide emissions, affecting air 

quality in one or more areas. Since the current analysis is part of a Tier 1 EIS, detailed site-specific 

information (e.g. local traffic conditions at stations) is not available at this time; therefore, local 

(microscale) air quality analyses are limited to screening for potential local impacts from 

locomotive emissions (worst case of all alternatives was analyzed), and a qualitative discussion of 

on-road microscale impacts. The net change in area-wide (mesoscale) emissions is analyzed in this 

chapter for each alternative, and evaluated for potential adverse and/or beneficial impacts on air 

quality.

4.19.1. Regulatory Context

Pollutants for Analysis

Emissions from motor vehicles and locomotives result from combustion of fuels—on-road vehicles 

are predominantly gasoline- and diesel-powered, and locomotives are almost entirely dieselpowered, other than electric locomotives.

Carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen 

oxides (nitric oxide, NO, and nitrogen dioxide, NO2, collectively referred to as NOx) are all emitted 

from the combustion of both gasoline and diesel. However, CO emissions are predominantly from 

gasoline combustion while NOx and PM emissions are predominantly from diesel combustion. Fine 

PM is also formed when emissions of NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx, which includes sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and other sulfur oxides), ammonia, organic compounds, and other gases react or condense in the

atmosphere. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by complex photochemical processes that include 

NOx and VOC. Since CO, VOC, PM, and NOx have all been identified as pollutants of concern for 

public health under the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as “criteria pollutants” (see more 

below), and are emitted from both on-road and locomotive engines, they have all been included in 

the mesoscale analysis presented below. 

Overall, the significant reduction in CO emissions from motor vehicles due to federal regulations 

over the past few decades have been very successful, and CO concentrations are generally not of 

concern in New York State, although regulations are maintained to ensure continued compliance. 

Although CO does not have an area-wide impact, mesoscale CO emissions were nonetheless 

analyzed to gauge the overall impact of the program on CO emissions. 

In addition to being a precursor to the formation of ozone, NO2 (one component of NOx) is also a 

regulated pollutant. Since NO2 is mostly formed from the transformation of NO in the atmosphere, 

it has mostly been of concern further downwind from large stationary point sources, and not a local 

concern from mobile sources. (NOx emissions from fuel combustion consist of approximately 90 

percent NO and 10 percent NO2 at the source.) However, with the promulgation of the 2010 1-hour 

Page 4-208 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

average standard for NO2, local sources such as vehicular and locomotive emissions may become of 

greater concern for this pollutant.

As described below, PM is regulated in two size categories: particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less 

than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10, which includes PM2.5). PM2.5 has the ability to reach the 

lower regions of the respiratory tract, delivering with it other compounds that adsorb to the 

surfaces of the particles, and is also extremely persistent in the atmosphere. PM2.5 is mainly derived 

from combustion material that has volatilized and then condensed to form primary PM (often soon 

after the release from a source exhaust) or from precursor gases reacting in the atmosphere to form 

secondary PM. Diesel-powered engines are a significant source of respirable PM, most of which is 

PM2.5.

Emissions of SO2—also a criteria pollutant under the CAA—are currently associated mainly with 

stationary sources, and sources utilizing non-road diesel such as diesel trains, marine engines, and 

non-road vehicles (e.g., construction engines). On-road diesel vehicles currently contribute very 

little to SO2 emissions since the sulfur content of on-road diesel fuel, which is federally regulated, is 

extremely low. Similarly, non-road diesel federal regulations are being phased in by 2012 (with 

minor exceptions as late as 2015) requiring the phase out of sulfur in diesel for all uses. Therefore, 

SO2 from transportation sources in general will not be an issue of concern beginning in the near 

future. Similarly, lead in gasoline has been banned under the CAA, and therefore, lead is not a 

pollutant of concern for the program. Therefore, SO2 and lead have not been included in this 

analysis.

In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, non-criteria pollutants may be of concern. 

These pollutants are sometimes referred to as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and as Mobile 

Source Air Toxics (MSATs) in the on-road context. Some HAPs emitted from vehicles, such as 

benzene and toluene, are controlled by fuel and tailpipe emissions regulations. Although HAPs are 

not generally of concern on an area-wide basis, the area-wide (mesoscale) analysis includes an 

estimate of the net change in emissions of the most important HAPs.

National and State Air Quality Standards

As required by the CAA, primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

have been established for six major air pollutants: CO, NO2, ozone, respirable PM (both PM2.5 and 

PM10), SO2, and lead. The primary standards represent levels that are requisite to protect the public 

health, allowing an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards are intended to protect the 

nation’s welfare, and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, 

and other aspects of the environment. The NAAQS are presented in Exhibit 4-35. The NAAQS for 

CO, annual NO2, and SO2 have also been adopted as the ambient air quality standards for New York 

State, but are defined on a running 12-month basis rather than for calendar years only. 

Federal ambient air quality standards do not exist for HAP’s; however, the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has issued standards for certain non-criteria 

compounds, including beryllium, gaseous fluorides, and hydrogen sulfide. NYSDEC has also 

developed guideline concentrations for numerous non-criteria pollutants. The NYSDEC guidance 

document DAR-1 (October 2010) contains a compilation of annual and short term (1-hour) 

guideline concentrations for these compounds. The NYSDEC guidance thresholds represent 

ambient levels that are considered safe for public exposure. The U.S. EPA has also developed 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-209

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-35—National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary Secondary

ppm μg/m3 ppm μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-Hour Average (1) 9 10,000 None

1-Hour Average (1) 35 40,000

Lead 

Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 NA 0.15

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1-Hour Average (2) 0.100 189 None

Annual Average 0.053 100 0.053 100

Ozone (O3)

8-Hour Average (3,4) 0.075 150 0.075 150

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)

24-Hour Average (1) NA 150 NA 150

Fine Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Annual Mean(5) NA 12 NA 15

24-Hour Average (6) NA 35 NA 35

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1-Hour Average(7) 0.075 196 NA NA

Maximum 3-Hour Average (1) NA NA 0.50 1,300

Notes: 

ppm – parts per million (unit of measure for gases only)

μg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter (unit of measure for gases and particles, including lead)

NA – not applicable

All annual periods refer to calendar year.

Standards are defined in ppm. Approximately equivalent concentrations in μg/m3 are presented.

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once a year. (2) 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. Effective April 12, 2010.

(3) 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr average concentration.

(4) The U.S. EPA has proposed lowering the primary standard further to within the range 0.060-0.070 ppm, and adding a 

secondary standard measured as a cumulative concentration within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours aimed mainly at 

protecting sensitive vegetation. A final decision regarding this standard has been postponed but is expected to occur in 2013. (5) 3-year average of annual mean. U.S. EPA has lowered the primary standard from 15 μg/m3, effective March 2013.

(6) Not to be exceeded by the annual 98th percentile when averaged over 3 years.

(7) 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. Replaced the previous annual- and 

24 hour-average standards, effective August 23, 2010.

Source: 40 CFR Part 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Page 4-210 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

guidelines for assessing exposure to non-criteria pollutants. These exposure guidelines are used in 

health risk assessments to determine the potential effects to the public.

NAAQS Attainment Status and State Implementation Plans

The CAA, as amended in 1990, defines non-attainment areas as geographic regions that have been 

designated as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS. When an area is designated as nonattainment by the U.S. EPA, the state is required to develop and implement a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), which delineates how a state plans to achieve air quality that meets the NAAQS under 

the deadlines established by the CAA, followed by a plan for maintaining attainment status once the 

area is in attainment. The various non-attainment and maintenance areas in the program study 

area are summarized in Exhibit 4-36 and presented in Exhibit 4-37, and their status is reviewed in 

this section below.

Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester, Lower Orange County Metropolitan Area (LOCMA), and the 

five New York City counties (the New York-New Jersey-Long Island Nonattainment Area, New York 

portion) had been designated as a severe non-attainment area for ozone (1-hour average standard, 

0.12 ppm). In November 1998, New York State submitted its Phase II Alternative Attainment 

Demonstration for Ozone, which was finalized and approved by the U.S. EPA effective March 6, 2002, 

addressing attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. Although revoked by the U.S. EPA 

(effective 2005), some provisions of the 1-hour standard remained in place for 8-hour nonattainment areas (see below). On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA determined that the 

Poughkeepsie non-attainment area (Dutchess, Orange, Ulster, and Putnam counties) has attained 

the 1-hour standard. On June 18, 2012, the U.S. EPA determined that the New York-New JerseyLong Island Nonattainment Area has attained the standard. Although not yet a redesignation to 

attainment status, this determination removes further requirements under the 1-hour standard.

Effective June 15, 2004, the U.S. EPA designated Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester, and the five 

New York City Counties (the New York-New Jersey-Long Island non-attainment area, New York 

portion) as moderate non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour average ozone standard (LOCMA was 

moved to the Poughkeepsie moderate non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone). On February 8, 2008, 

NYSDEC submitted final revisions to the SIP to the U.S. EPA to address the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA determined that the Poughkeepsie non-attainment 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour standard. On June 18, 2012, the U.S. EPA determined that this 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm). Although not yet a redesignation to 

attainment status, this determination removes further requirements under the 8-hour standard.

In March 2008 the U.S. EPA strengthened the 8–hour ozone standards. U.S. EPA designated the New 

York portion of the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY-NJ-CT non-attainment area 

(NAA) as a marginal NAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012. SIPs will be due in 

2015.

Manhattan has been designated as a moderate non-attainment area for PM10. On January 30, 2013, 

New York State requested that U.S. EPA approve its withdrawal of the 1995 SIP and redesignation 

request for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, and that U.S. EPA make a clean data finding instead, based on 

data monitored from 2009-2011 indicating PM10 concentrations well below the 1987 NAAQS.

Although not yet a redesignation to attainment status, if approved, this determination would 

remove further requirements for related SIP submissions.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-211

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-36—Non-Attainment Areas in the Study Area

Pollutant Non-Attainment Area Severity Counties

Ozone Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Marginal Subpart 2 (1997 

standard)

Albany

Greene

Montgomery

Rensselaer

Saratoga

Schenectady

Schoharie

New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT

Marginal Bronx

Kings

Nassau

New York

Queens

Richmond

Rockland

Suffolk

Westchester

Poughkeepsie, NY Moderate Subpart 2 (1997 

standard)

Orange

Dutchess

Putnam

Rochester, NY Marginal Subpart 2 (1997 

standard)

Genesee

Livingston

Monroe

Ontario

Orleans

Wayne

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Moderate Subpart 2 (1997 

standard)

Erie

Niagara

CO New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT

Maintenance (moderate) Bronx

Kings

Nassau

New York

Queens

Richmond

Westchester

Syracuse, NY Maintenance (moderate) Onondaga

PM10 New York Co, NY Moderate New York

PM2.5 New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT

Non-Attainment Bronx

Kings

Nassau

New York

Queens

Richmond

Rockland

Suffolk

Westchester

Orange

Source: U.S. EPA, Greenbook, http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/, accessed October 2013.

Page 4-212 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-37—Non-Attainment Areas and Maintenance Areas in the Study Area

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-213

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

The five New York City counties and Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and Orange Counties 

are a PM2.5 non-attainment area due to exceedance of the annual average standard. Based on recent 

monitoring data (2006-2011), annual average concentrations of PM2.5 in New York City no longer 

exceed the annual standard. The U.S. EPA has determined that the area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, effective December 15, 2010. Although not yet a redesignation to attainment 

status, this determination removes further requirements for related SIP submissions. New York 

State submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan to U.S. EPA in February 2013. U.S. 

EPA has recently lowered the annual average primary standard to 12 μg/m3. U.S. EPA will make 

initial attainment designations by December 2014. Based on analysis of 2009-2011 monitoring 

data, it is possible that the region will be in attainment for the new standard.

The U.S. EPA has revised the 24-hour average PM2.5 standard. The New York City Metropolitan Area 

is designated as non-attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The non-attainment area 

includes the same 10-county area originally designated as non-attainment with the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on recent monitoring data (2007-2011), 24-hour average concentrations of 

PM2.5 in this area no longer exceed the standard. New York has submitted a “Clean Data” request to 

the U.S. EPA. Although not yet a redesignation to attainment status, this determination removes 

further requirements for related SIP submissions. New York State submitted a redesignation 

request and maintenance plan to U.S. EPA in February 2013.

All areas in New York State are currently in attainment of the annual-average NO2 standard. The 

U.S. EPA has recently promulgated a new 1-hour NO2 standard. Based on data from existing 

monitoring stations, the U.S. EPA has designated the entire State of New York as 

“unclassifiable/attainment” effective February 29, 2012. However, since additional monitoring is 

required for the 1-hour standard, areas will be reclassified once three years of monitoring data are 

available (2016 or 2017).

Based on the available monitoring data, all areas in New York State currently meet the new 1-hour 

SO2 standard. Additional monitoring will be required. The U.S. EPA plans to make final attainment 

designations in June 2013. SIPs for non-attainment areas will be due by June 2015.

In 2002, the U.S. EPA re-designated New York City as in attainment for CO. Under the resulting 

maintenance plan, New York City is committed to implementing site-specific control measures 

throughout the city to reduce CO levels, should unanticipated localized growth result in elevated CO 

levels during the maintenance period. The Syracuse area (Onondaga County) is also a maintenance 

area for CO, after attaining the standard in 1993; the area will soon complete its second 10-year 

maintenance plan and go into official attainment status sometime in late 2013 or early 2014.

Conformity with State Implementation Plans

The conformity requirements of the CAA and regulations promulgated thereunder (conformity 

requirements) limit the ability of federal agencies to assist, fund, permit, and approve projects in 

non-attainment areas that do not conform to the applicable SIP. When subject to this regulation, the 

lead agency is responsible for demonstrating conformity for its proposed action. Conformity 

determinations for federal actions other than those related to transportation plans, programs, and 

projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) must be made according to the requirements of 40 CFR 93, Subpart B (federal 

general conformity regulations).

Page 4-214 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The general conformity regulations apply to those federal actions in non-attainment or 

maintenance areas where the action’s direct and indirect emissions have the potential to emit one 

or more of the six criteria pollutants at rates equal to or exceeding the prescribed rates.

General conformity De Minimis Threshold Levels for various non-attainment areas and 

maintenance areas intersecting the program study area are presented in Exhibit 4-38.

Exhibit 4-38—General Conformity Threshold Levels

Non-Attainment Area and Pollutants Tons/year

Ozone, other non-attainment areas inside an ozone 

transport region–

VOC 50

NOx 100

CO, maintenance areas 100

PM10, Moderate non-attainment areas 100

PM2.5, any non-attainment area

Direct emissions 100

SO2 100

NOX 100

Sources: 40 CFR 93.153(b)

The general conformity requirements do not apply to federal actions that:

• Do not satisfy either one of the above conditions (where the action’s direct and indirect 

emissions have the potential to emit one or more of the six criteria pollutants at rates equal 

to or exceeding the threshold levels above within a non-attainment or maintenance area);

• Occur in an attainment area;

• Are related to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved 

under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. 1601); or 

• Qualify for exemptions established at 40 CFR 93.153.

The regulation assumes that a proposed federal action whose criteria pollutant emissions have 

already been included in the local SIP’s attainment or maintenance demonstrations conforms to the 

SIP.

The program’s effect on emissions within the relevant nonattainment areas and applicability of the 

conformity regulations for operational emissions have been evaluated as part of the regional 

(mesoscale) emissions analysis. If the project is not included in the State Implementation Plan, an 

applicability analysis to determine if a general conformity analysis is required will be undertaken in 

the future as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-215

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

4.19.2. Methodology

Existing Conditions

Existing conditions, presented as context for the analyses, are presented based on existing ambient 

air quality information collected by NYSDEC. Details are provided in Section 4.19.3, “Existing 

Conditions.”

Local (Microscale) Analysis

On a local scale, the potential effect of the program on air quality is limited to increases in 

locomotive emissions, and both increases and decreases in on-road emissions. Decreases in onroad emissions could have a beneficial impact on local air quality if large numbers of vehicle trips 

are shifted to rail, occurring along roadways where those trips would otherwise occur. Since the 

details of that shift are not known at this time, this potential benefit has not been analyzed; 

however, a more meaningful analysis of the region-wide benefits of this mode shift is included in 

the regional analysis. Similarly, the details of increased vehicle trips to and from rail stations are 

not known at this time. Since these trips may have the potential to adversely affect air quality, this 

effect will be analyzed in subsequent environmental analyses. Therefore, the remainder of this 

section focuses on the potential local effect associated with increases in locomotive emissions.

In order to assess the need for local air quality analysis, a screening analysis was first performed 

with the objective of identifying any potential for significant impacts on air quality resulting from 

rail operations, including all program alternatives (including the Base Alternative). A simplified 

pollutant dispersion model was created, using AERSCREEN 149—U.S. EPA’s recommended 

screening-level air quality model based on the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement 

Committee Model (AERMOD). The model produces estimates of worst-case 1-hour concentrations 

for a single source, without the need for hourly meteorological data, and also includes conversion 

factors to estimate worst-case 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual concentrations. AERSCREEN is 

intended to produce concentration estimates that are equal to or greater than the estimates 

produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of meteorological and terrain data. The modeling 

followed the general procedures outlined in the Guideline on Air Quality Models (referred to as 

Appendix W).150 The model was run for both rural and urban conditions.

The dispersion analysis was based on the total locomotive emissions associated with the full 

implementation of the program, in 2035, assuming the highest number of daily trips from any 

alternative—17 and 8 round-trips per day on the southern and western portions of the corridor, 

respectively. Since the increment is the same on both legs, and the total is almost double on the 

Empire Corridor South, the analysis focuses on the worst case—the Empire Corridor South. All 

locomotives associated with program would be newly manufactured model-year 2015 at the 

earliest, and would therefore be U.S. EPA Tier 4 certified (Tier 4 is the lowest emissions certification 

available to date, with considerably lower PM and NOx emissions as compared to lower-tier 

locomotives). U.S. EPA’s in-use Tier 4 locomotive emissions factors were used to calculate 

emissions.151 Annual NOx concentrations were conservatively assessed assuming that 75 percent of 

149/ U.S. EPA, AERSCREEN User’s Guide, EPA-454/B-11-001, March 2011, 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_screening.htm#aerscreen>. 

150/ U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51, Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and 

Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions, November 9, 

2005,<http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf > 

151/ U.S. EPA OTAQ, Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009.

Page 4-216 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

all NOx is converted to NO2 (Appendix W Tier 2 method); this assumption may overestimate NO2

concentrations by a factor of 6 or more, in addition to the high level of conservatism built in to the 

screening procedure, because the maximum concentrations predicted are immediately adjacent to 

the source, and would therefore not have time to be converted from NO to NO2 (roughly 90 percent 

of NOx emitted from diesel engines is in the form on NO).

Emissions estimates assumed the highest emissions, under two scenarios:

• Line-Haul—Emissions along the track, assumes locomotives operating at 100 percent load; 

and

• Station—Emissions immediately adjacent to the station, nearest to the locomotive stopping 

point. Assumes deceleration into and acceleration out of the station, in addition to idle 

emissions.

The results of the dispersion analysis are discussed in the context of background concentrations 

and the NAAQS.

Regional (Mesoscale) Analysis

Criteria Pollutants

The regional (mesoscale) emissions analysis estimates the net change in emissions associated with 

the program, including the change in both on-road and locomotive emissions. The analysis does not 

include the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decrease associated with trips that may be reduced but 

that do not use the New York State Thruway system. Since these trips would likely not increase rail 

trips, the analysis is somewhat conservative (i.e., shows lower reductions and higher net 

emissions).

The locomotive emission factors used are described in the local (microscale) analysis section above. 

Power input was estimated using LTK Engineering Services’ TrainOps simulation model. The 

model includes proposed grades, curves, station locations, speed restrictions and switch-related 

diverging movements specific to the proposed program alternatives. Emissions were then 

calculated for each non-attainment area by multiplying the total power input in horsepower-hour 

(hp-hr) within the area by the locomotive emission factor for each pollutant.

On-road emission factors in grams per mile were obtained from the New York State Department of 

Transportation’s Environmental Procedures Manual,152 applying the factors for 2035, based on the 

representative speeds for each roadway class in each county from New York State Department of 

Environmental Protection’s speed analysis prepared for the 2003 SIP motor vehicle emissions 

budget update.153 Total vehicle miles-traveled (VMT) were estimated for each county and roadway 

class using the Cube Voyager model—an intercity travel demand model studying the mode share of 

travel (primary auto, bus, air, and rail) along the Empire Corridor. The mode share is driven 

primarily by a combination of the total travel time and the associated costs. The VMT were then 

multiplied by the corresponding emission factor and summed for each non-attainment area.

152/ NYSDOT, The Environmental Manual, <https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-andguidance/epm?nd=nysdot>, accessed February 2012.

153/ NYSDEC, Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget Update, June 2003, Attachment 17, "Speed Tables".

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-217

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 listed 188 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and 

addressed the need to control toxic emissions from transportation. EPA’s 2007 Mobile Source Air 

Toxics (MSAT) rule identified a subset of seven HAPs as having significant contributions from 

mobile sources: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene, polycyclic organic 

matter, and diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also 

considers these the priority MSATs for analysis.154 MSATs were assessed, using criteria in the 

Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, issued February 2006 by FHWA and 

the September 2009 update. Based on the FHWA guidance, the proposed alternatives do not 

require a detailed quantitative analysis. Nonetheless, in accordance with the program scope, an 

estimate of the net change in statewide MSAT emissions was prepared.

Since detailed MSAT emission factors for vehicles and locomotives were not available, emissions 

were estimated based on the ratio of the emissions of each pollutant to NOx emissions from light 

duty gasoline vehicles and locomotives in New York State. Emissions data for New York State in 

2008 for both sources were obtained from EPA’s National Emissions Inventory.155 The ratio of NOx

to each MSAT pollutant was calculated, and then multiplied by the projected statewide NOx

emission calculated using the above criteria pollutant methodology. Since these ratios are based on 

statewide locomotive emissions and on 2008 data, they do not reflect Tier 4 locomotives and future 

(2035) vehicle emissions, and therefore overestimate the emissions benefits (see discussion with 

results).

4.19.3. Existing Conditions

The most recent concentrations of all criteria pollutants measured at ambient air quality 

monitoring stations in areas near the Empire Corridor at the nearest stations available in the 

various regions are presented in Exhibit 4-39. HAP concentrations in ambient air are not routinely 

monitored, and existing data is largely relevant only to highly localized sources, and, therefore, is 

not presented here.

4.19.4. Environmental Consequences

Local (Microscale)

Screening Results

The results of the screening analysis, representing the effect of locomotive emissions along the 

track and at stations, is presented in Exhibit 4-40, and includes both urban and rural dispersion and 

background concentrations, and are presented separately for the western and the southern 

sections. As described above, this analysis includes many layers of conservative assumptions, 

resulting in high-end estimate of potential concentrations. The resulting concentrations are lower 

than the NAAQS for both annual-average NO2 and PM2.5—the two critical pollutants for this 

analysis, indicating that operations of the proposed alternatives would not result in a significant 

adverse impact with respect to these standards. Since particulate matter emitted from locomotives

154/ FHWA, Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (HEPN-10), September 20, 2009. 155/ U.S. EPA, 2008 NEI, <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html>, accessed 3/7/2012.

Page 4-218 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-39—Air Pollutant Concentrations along the Program Corridor (2011)

Ozone (ppm) 8-Hour

NAAQS 0.075

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Loudonville, Albany 0.067

Schenectady, Schenectady 0.065

New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT—NY Portion

I.S. 52, Bronx 0.072

White Plains, Westchester 0.075

Poughkeepsie, NY Millbrook, Dutchess 0.072

Mt. Ninham, Putnam 0.071

Rochester, NY Rochester, Monroe 0.072

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Amherst, Erie 0.065

Syracuse, NY East Syracuse, Onondaga 0.069

Utica-Rome, NY Camden, Oneida 0.067

CO (ppm) 1-Hour 8-Hour

NAAQS 35 9

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Loudonville, Albany 1.2 0.8

Schenectady, Schenectady 2.3 1.4

New York, NY Botanical Garden, Bronx 3.0 1.7

Rochester, NY Rochester, Monroe 1.1 0.9

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Buffalo, Erie 1.6 1.3

Niagara Falls, Niagara 1.9 1.8

Syracuse, NY Syracuse, Onondaga 2.0 1.4

Particulate Matter (μg/m3) PM10

24-Hour

PM2.5

24-hour PM2.5 Annual

NAAQS 150 35 15

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Albany, Albany NA 23.3 8.3

New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT—NY Portion

Madison Ave, New York 52 1 NA NA

JHS 45, New York NA 26.4 10.3

I.S. 52, Bronx 35 1 28.6 1 10.9 1

Mamaroneck, Westchester NA 25.5 1 9.1

Poughkeepsie, NY Newburgh, Orange NA 22.6 8.2

Rochester, NY Rochester, Monroe 26 23.6 8.4

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Buffalo, Erie NA 25.6 9.7

Niagara Falls, Niagara 32 22.1 8.4

Syracuse, NY East Syracuse, Onondaga NA 22.6 7.8

Utica-Rome, NY Utica, Oneida NA 23.6 8.0

(table continues)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-219

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-39 (cont’d)—Air Pollutant Concentrations along Proposed Program Alignment (2011)

SO2 (ppb) 1-Hour 3-Hour

NAAQS 75 500

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Loudonville, Albany 15.8 14.5

Schenectady, Schenectady 18.2 12.2

New York, NY I.S. 52, Bronx 50.8 39.2

Poughkeepsie, NY Mt. Ninham, Putnam 12.8 11.7

Rochester, NY Rochester, Monroe 23.7 15.6

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Buffalo, Erie 19.1 18.2

Niagara Falls, Niagara 16.6 11.9

Syracuse, NY East Syracuse, Onondaga 10.9 8.3

NO2 (ppb) 1-Hour Annual

NAAQS 100 53

New York, NY I.S. 52, Bronx 65.6 20.86

Rochester, NY Rochester, Monroe 40.6 2 NA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Buffalo, Erie 62.9 13.00 1

Lead (μg/m3) 3-month average

NAAQS 0.15

New York, NY JHS 126, Brooklyn 0.008

Poughkeepsie, NY Scotchtown, Orange 0.010

Rochester, NY Rochester, Monroe 0.002

Notes: 

1. Data from 2010. Data not available for 2011.

2. 2011 data only; 3 years of data are not yet available.

NA Not Available

Concentrations are presented in the statistical form defined in the NAAQS: Short-term average PM10, CO, and SO2 3-hour 

concentrations are the second-highest of the year. SO2 1-hour is the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily 

maximum 1-hour average concentration. NO2 1-hour is the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile daily maximum 

1-hour average concentration. PM2.5 annual concentrations are the average of 2009-2011,and the 24-hour average 

concentration is the average of the annual 98th percentiles in 2009-2011. 8-hour average ozone concentrations are the 

average of the 4th highest-daily values from 2009-2011.

Source: NYSDEC, New York State Ambient Air Quality Data for 2011.

is almost entirely PM2.5 (and that was the assumption made for the analysis), and since the PM10

standard is higher, with relatively lower background levels, locomotive operations would also not 

be expected to result in a significant adverse impact on PM10 concentrations.

1-Hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

The U.S. EPA recently established a new 1-hour average NO2 standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb), 

effective April 12, 2010, in addition to the current annual standard. The statistical form is the 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations in a year. The U.S. 

EPA is considering the need for changes to the secondary NO2 standard under a separate review. 

By promulgating the 1-hour NO2 standard, the U.S. EPA has initiated a process under the CAA that

Page 4-220 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-40—Screening Level Worst-Case Concentrations from Locomotive Operations (μg/m3)

NO2 PM2.5

Annual 24-hour Annual

Albany—New York City, Rural Dispersion

Station 31.2 3.12 0.62

Line-Haul 36.6 0.73 0.73

Background 24.5 23.3 9.7

Total Station 55.8 26.42 10.32

Total Line-Haul 61.1 24.03 10.43

NAAQS 188 35 15

Niagara—Buffalo, Rural Dispersion

Station 13.2 1.32 0.26

Line-Haul 7.6 0.31 0.73

Background 24.5 23.3 9.7

Total Station 37.7 24.62 9.96

Total Line-Haul 32.2 23.61 10.43

NAAQS 188 35 15

Albany—New York City, Urban Dispersion

Station 2.0 0.20 0.04

Line-Haul 7.0 0.31 0.73

Background 39.4 28.6 10.9

Total Station 41.3 28.80 10.94

Total Line-Haul 46.3 28.91 11.63

NAAQS 188 35 15

Niagara—Buffalo, Urban Dispersion

Station 0.8 0.08 0.02

Line-Haul 2.9 0.06 0.73

Background 39.4 28.6 10.9

Total Station 40.2 28.68 10.92

Total Line-Haul 42.3 28.66 11.63

NAAQS 188 35 15

will ultimately result in the adoption of strategies designed to attain and maintain ambient NO2

concentrations at levels below the standard. This process will first involve installation of additional 

ambient NO2 monitoring stations near roadways. With respect to those areas that are identified as 

in non-attainment, states will be required to develop SIPs designed to meet the standard by 

specified time frames. The U.S. EPA and the states also can be expected to issue new regulations and 

guidance that will address methodologies and criteria for performing assessments of 1-hour NO2

concentrations from program-level emission sources and for evaluating their impacts. This 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-221

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

information is not currently available. Therefore, although the U.S. EPA has promulgated the 1-hour 

standard, it has yet to be fully implemented.

Uncertainty exists as to 1-hour NO2 background concentrations at ground level, especially near 

roadways, since these concentrations have not been measured within the current monitoring 

network. In addition, there are no clear methods to predict the rate of transformation of NO to NO2

at ground-level given the level of existing data and models. The U.S. EPA, in promulgating the 

standard, has expressed specific concern regarding mobile source impacts, and estimated that 

ambient concentrations of NO2 adjacent to roadways could be 30 to 100 percent higher than the 

concentrations measured at community scale (rooftop) monitoring stations.156 Similar concerns 

may exist regarding areas adjacent to railways.

Therefore, predicted impacts cannot be based on comparison with the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

since total 98th percentile values, including local area roadway contributions, cannot be estimated. 

In addition, methods for accurately predicting 1-hour NO2 concentrations from railways have not 

been developed. Given the scale of the NOx emissions associated with the locomotives, exceedances 

of the 1-hour NO2 standard resulting from locomotive operations cannot be ruled out; however, as 

discussed above, locomotives rated Tier 4 would be used, achieving the lowest practicable NOx

emissions.

Regional (Mesoscale)

The total net change in criteria pollutant emissions from Alternatives 90A, 90B, 110, and 125, 

applicable to each non-attainment area, are presented in Exhibit 4-41, Exhibit 4-42, Exhibit 4-43, 

and Exhibit 4-44, respectively. Although the changes are small in the regional context, the net result 

is a reduction in all pollutants other than NOx. The minor increase in NOx emissions is lower than 

the de minimis levels defined in the conformity regulations and would, therefore, be presumed to 

conform to the applicable SIPs, and would not require a conformity determination. Reduction in 

emissions would conform to all SIPs and maintenance plans by definition, and would result in a 

small net air quality benefit on a regional scale. Overall, the minor increase in NOx and decrease in 

VOC offset each other (both are ozone precursors, and the effect of VOC is somewhat smaller than 

NOx in most regions), leading to a very minor overall change in air quality.

To present these emission changes in context, the emissions were compared with the emissions 

projected to occur in each non-attainment area in 2035 from the on-road sector.157,158,159 The 

projected increase in NOx emissions and decrease in VOC emissions represent less than 0.3 percent 

of emissions in each non-attainment area (varies by region and alternative). Changes in all 

pollutants in the New York Metropolitan Area are projected to be approximately 0.02 percent or

less, and changes in CO in the Syracuse area would be less than 0.2 percent. Under Alternative 125 

the VOC benefits are somewhat higher, mostly in the Rochester and Buffalo-Niagara Falls nonattainment areas, and NOx shows a benefit in those areas but shows a larger increase in the 

Poughkeepsie area. Changes in particulate matter would be negligible. Overall, in all cases these 

changes range from very small to negligible.

156/ U.S. EPA, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), January 2010.

157/ NYMTC/OCTC, Final Transportation/Air Quality Conformity Determination for the Orange County Portion of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

Non-Attainment Area, May 12, 2010.

158/ PDCTC, Air Quality Conformity Determination Statement for the Poughkeepsie Ozone Non-attainment Area, May 12, 2010.

159/ For the Syracuse, Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo areas, future inventories or budgets were not available. The estimate is based on the 

ratio of 2008 NOx emissions in each region (or CO for Syracuse) to the emissions in the NYMA, from the EPA National Emissions 

Inventory.

Page 4-222 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-41—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 90A (tons per year)

Non-Attainment Area NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (ozone) -6.2 3.6 NA NA NA

Rochester, NY (ozone) -4.7 4.3 NA NA NA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (ozone) -1.5 1.6 NA NA NA

Poughkeepsie, NY (ozone) -1.1 1.8 NA NA NA

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (ozone, CO, PM2.5) -0.7 2.3 62 NA 0.25

Syracuse, NY (CO) NA NA 35 NA NA

New York Co, NY (PM10) NA NA NA 0.00 NA

Notes:

NA=Not Applicable. Data presented address only pollutants relevant to each non-attainment area.

Negative numbers represent a net increase.

Exhibit 4-42—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 90B (tons per year)

Non-Attainment Area NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (ozone) -8.0 4.0 NA NA NA

Rochester, NY (ozone) -3.1 5.0 NA NA NA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (ozone) -1.2 1.8 NA NA NA

Poughkeepsie, NY (ozone) -2.6 1.8 NA NA NA

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (ozone, CO, PM2.5) -1.5 2.3 61 NA 0.24

Syracuse, NY (CO) NA NA 44 NA NA

New York Co, NY (PM10) NA NA NA 0.00 NA

Notes:

NA=Not Applicable. Data presented address only pollutants relevant to each non-attainment area.

Negative numbers represent a net increase.

Exhibit 4-43—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 110 (tons per year)

Non-Attainment Area NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (ozone) -9.0 4.3 NA NA NA

Rochester, NY (ozone) -4.1 5.3 NA NA NA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (ozone) -1.4 1.9 NA NA NA

Poughkeepsie, NY (ozone) -2.6 1.8 NA NA NA

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (ozone, CO, PM2.5) -1.5 2.3 61 NA 0.24

Syracuse, NY (CO) NA NA 48 NA NA

New York Co, NY (PM10) NA NA NA 0.00 NA

Notes:

NA=Not Applicable. Data presented address only pollutants relevant to each non-attainment area.

Negative numbers represent a net increase.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-223

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

The net statewide reduction in MSAT emissions is presented in Exhibit 4-45. Since the estimate is 

based on 2008 data and represents a mix for all locomotive types, this analysis does not capture the 

benefits of the Tier 4 locomotives, but also does not capture the benefits of future cleaner light duty 

gasoline vehicles. U.S. EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSAT 

emissions to decline significantly over the next several decades in three ways: (1) by lowering the 

benzene content in gasoline; (2) by reducing exhaust emissions from passenger vehicles operated 

at cold temperatures; and (3) by reducing emissions that evaporate from, and permeate through, 

portable fuel containers. Federal regulations are also severely reducing the diesel emissions from 

both on-road and non-road vehicles, and diesel PM is therefore also expected to diminish over time. 

In general, the benefits are expected to be much lower than presented here (possibly on the order 

of 60 percent).

Note that these reductions do not necessarily translate into health or environmental benefits, which 

would depend on local concentrations at specific locations, rather than statewide emissions. Along 

roadways, if there would be any noticeable change it would be a reduction, on the order of the local 

VMT reduction; along rail lines, if there were to be any noticeable change it would not occur along 

the electrified portion of Alternative 125. A more detailed analysis of local effects may be 

undertaken during subsequent environmental analysis.

Exhibit 4-44—Criteria Pollutant Emissions Net Reduction, 2035, Alternative 125 (tons per year)

Non-Attainment Area NOx VOC CO PM10 PM2.5

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (ozone) -9.3 7.3 NA NA NA

Rochester, NY (ozone) 6.7 8.7 NA NA NA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (ozone) 2.0 2.8 NA NA NA

Poughkeepsie, NY (ozone) -9.6 1.7 NA NA NA

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (ozone, CO, PM2.5) -7.1 2.1 55 NA 0.16

Syracuse, NY (CO) NA NA 100 NA NA

New York Co, NY (PM10) NA NA NA -0.02 NA

Notes:

NA=Not Applicable. Data presented address only pollutants relevant to each non-attainment area.

Negative numbers represent a net increase.

Exhibit 4-45—State-Wide Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions (net reduction ton/year)

Pollutant Alternative

90A 90B 110 125*

1,3-Butadiene 0.069 0.079 0.084 0.133

Acrolein 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.010

Formaldehyde 0.125 0.150 0.151 0.243

Benzene 0.602 0.681 0.728 1.152

Naphthalene 0.009 0.011 0.011 0.018

Polycyclic organic matter / hydrocarbons 0.0004 0.0007 0.0005 0.0008

Notes:

* Net emissions do not include increased electricity consumption. No data is available to describe where electricity 

would come from and what the HAP emissions would be from each source.

Page 4-224 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.19.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

This Tier 1 analysis focused on net regional (mesoscale) emissions and on potential increases in 

concentrations along rail lines. In both cases, no potential significant adverse air quality impacts 

were found, and therefore, no mitigation will be required. If future analyses of local on-road and 

locomotive emission identify potential impacts, appropriate site-specific mitigation will be 

investigated.

4.19.6. Future Analysis

Tier 2 analysis will include the potential air quality implications of local traffic to and from stations, 

and of locomotives and other sources operating in rail yards and other locations other than the linehaul analyzed here for Tier 1. Potential construction impacts will also be analyzed. If the project is 

not included in the State Implementation Plan, an applicability analysis will be performed to 

determine if a general conformity analysis is required. In addition, should in line-haul operations 

change substantially, microscale line-haul and mesoscale emissions likely would be investigated.

4.20. Energy and Climate Change

Potential effects of global climate change on the program alternatives and potential effects of the 

program alternatives on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are assessed in 

this section. The potential effect on the program alternatives due to changes in sea level and storm 

surges resulting from global climate change is discussed first. This is followed by an assessment of 

potential energy use and GHG emissions resulting from the program’s construction and operation. 

Available scientific, technical, and policy studies and information were reviewed and relevant 

information is presented. 

The energy and GHG analysis was prepared in accordance with the Draft Air Quality, Energy and 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Procedures for Plans and TIPs and Draft Energy and Greenhouse 

Gas Emission Analysis Procedures for Projects, February 12, 2003, and subsequent guidance and 

methods provided by NYSDOT. In addition to the NYSDOT methodology, the general approach 

follows the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) policy document 

entitled Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements, 

July 15, 2009 (NYSDEC policy). The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) draft guidance 

entitled Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, February 18, 2010, was consulted as well.

The global climate is changing as a result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, 

associated with anthropogenic (from human sources) emissions. GHGs emitted from anthropogenic 

sources include primarily emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, as well as various other 

processes. Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are increasing because the chemical removal 

processes are limited, and the rate of emission exceeds the rate of the natural removal processes. 

The increase in GHG concentrations, since the beginning of the industrial age, has led to a 

measurable warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, surface, and oceans, which, in turn, has and will 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-225

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

result in myriad of complex climatic changes that will vary by geographic location, substantially 

affecting human and natural systems. 

While the contribution of any single program to climate change is infinitesimal, the combined GHG 

emissions from all human activity have a severe adverse impact on global climate. The nature of 

the impact dictates that all sectors address GHG emissions by identifying GHG sources and 

practicable means to reduce them. Therefore, this chapter does not identify specific contributions 

of the proposed program to climate impacts, but rather addresses the changes in GHG emissions 

associated with each of the program alternatives as compared to the Base Alternative. 

4.20.1. Regulatory Context

Pollutants of Concern

GHGs are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that 

absorb and emit infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere, and 

clouds. This property causes the general warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, or the “greenhouse 

effect.” Water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone are the primary 

greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

There are also a number of entirely human-made GHGs—mainly halocarbons and other chlorineand bromine-containing substances—which also damage the stratospheric ozone layer 

(contributing to the “ozone hole”). Since these compounds are being replaced and phased out due 

to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and are not associated with most projects, there is generally no need 

to address them in program-related GHG assessments. Although ozone is considered to be the third 

most important greenhouse gas, after CO2 and methane, it does not need to be assessed as such at 

the program level since it is a rapidly reacting chemical and efforts are ongoing to reduce ozone 

concentrations as a criteria pollutant (see Section 4.19, “Air Quality”). Similarly, water vapor is of 

great importance to global climate change, but is not directly of concern as an emitted GHG since 

the negligible quantities emitted from anthropogenic sources are not of concern. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary pollutant of concern from anthropogenic sources. Although not 

the GHG with the strongest effect per molecule, CO2 is by far the most abundant and, therefore, the 

most influential GHG. CO2 is emitted from any combustion process (both natural and 

anthropogenic), from some industrial processes such as the manufacture of cement, mineral 

production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products, from volcanic eruptions, 

and from the decay of organic matter. CO2 is removed (“sequestered”) from the lower atmosphere 

by natural processes such as photosynthesis and uptake by the oceans. CO2 is included in any 

analysis of GHG emissions.

Methane and nitrous oxide (N2O) also play an important role since they have limited removal 

processes and a relatively high impact on global climate change as compared to an equal quantity of 

CO2. Emissions of these compounds, therefore, are included in GHG emissions analyses as 

appropriate.

The NYSDEC and CEQ guidance list six GHGs that could potentially be included in the scope of an 

EIS: CO2, N2O, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (also 

known as “Kyoto gases”). This analysis focuses mostly on CO2, N2O, and methane resulting from 

combustion sources such as locomotives and vehicles, as well as sources associated with 

Page 4-226 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

production of construction materials. There are no significant direct or indirect sources of HFCs, 

PFCs, or SF6 associated with the proposed program.

To present a complete inventory of all GHGs, component emissions are added together and 

presented as CO2 equivalent (CO2e)—a unit representing the quantity of each GHG weighted by its 

effectiveness using CO2 as a reference. This is achieved by multiplying the quantity of each GHG 

emitted by a factor called global warming potential (GWP). GWPs account for the lifetime and the 

radiative forcing of each chemical over a period of 100 years (e.g., CO2 has a much shorter 

atmospheric lifetime than SF6, and therefore has a much lower GWP). The GWPs for the main GHGs 

discussed here are presented in Exhibit 4-46.

Exhibit 4-46—Global Warming Potential (GWP) for Major GHGs

Greenhouse Gas 100-year Horizon GWP

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1

Methane (CH4) 25

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 124 to 14,800

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 7,390 to 12,200

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800

Source: IPCC, Climate Change 2007—The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report, 

Table 2-14, 2007.

Policy, Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks

As a result of the understanding that human activity resulting in GHG emissions has the potential to 

substantially impact the earth’s climate which in turn would affect human and natural systems in a 

variety of ways, the vast majority of which are expected to be negative, countries around the world 

have undertaken efforts to reduce emissions by implementing both global and local measures 

addressing energy consumption and production, land use, and other sectors. Although the U.S. has not 

ratified the international agreements, which set emissions targets for GHGs, in a step toward the 

development of national climate change regulation, the U.S. has agreed that deep cuts are necessary 

and has agreed to take action to meet this objective, with a stated goal of reducing emissions to 17 

percent lower than 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2050 (pending 

legislation) via the Copenhagen Accord.160161 Without legislation focused on this goal, the U.S. EPA is 

required to regulate GHG under the U.S. Clean Air Act, and has already begun preparing regulations. 

The U.S. EPA has established various voluntary programs to reduce emissions and increase energy 

efficiency and has recently embarked on regulatory initiatives related to GHG emissions. In 2011, total 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,702.3 teragrams (Tg), or million metric tons, of CO2e. Total U.S. 

160 / UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, Copenhagen Accord, March 30, 2010.

161/ Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, letter to Mr. Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC, January 28, 2010.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-227

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

emissions have increased by 8.4 percent from 1990 to 2011, and emissions decreased from 2010 to 

2011 by 1.6 percent (108.0 Tg CO2e).162

The most recent renewable fuel standards regulations (February 2010) require 12.95 billion gallons of 

renewable fuels to be produced in 2010, increasing annually up to 36.0 billion gallons in 2022. The 

renewable fuel standards regulations also set volume standards for specific categories of renewable 

fuels including cellulosic, biomass-based diesel, and total advanced renewable fuels, and specify 

lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds ranging from 20 percent for renewable fuel to 60 percent for 

cellulosic biofuel (as compared to the baseline gasoline or diesel replaced).

In March 2009, the U.S.DOT set combined corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light 

duty vehicles for the 2011 model year. In June 2009, the U.S. EPA granted California a previously 

denied waiver to regulate vehicular GHG emissions, allowing 19 other states (representing 40 percent 

of the light-duty vehicle market, including New York) to adopt the California mobile source GHG 

emissions standards. In April 2010, the U.S. EPA and the U.S. DOT established the first GHG emission 

standards and more stringent CAFE standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles. 

The agencies also proposed the first-ever program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel 

efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, such as large pickup trucks and vans, semi-trucks, and 

vocational vehicles. These regulations will all serve to reduce vehicular GHG emissions over time.

There are also regional, state, and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions. In 2009, Governor Paterson 

issued Executive Order No. 24, establishing a goal of reducing GHG emissions in New York by 80 

percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050, and creating a Climate Action Council tasked with 

preparing a climate action plan outlining the policies required to attain the GHG reduction goal—that 

effort is currently under way, and an interim draft plan has been published.163

The 2009 New York State Energy Plan164 outlines the state’s energy goals and provides strategies and 

recommendations for meeting those goals. The state’s goals include, among other measures, reducing 

vehicle miles traveled by expanding alternative transportation options. 

Many local governments worldwide, including many in New York State, are also adopting goals and 

policies related to climate change. Cities and towns participating in these initiatives set GHG emissions 

reduction targets, prepare climate action plans defining how they will attain these targets, and 

ultimately create policies aimed at achieving the reduction targets. Such policies would be 

strengthened by increased passenger rail service.

A number of benchmarks for energy efficiency and green building design have also been developed. 

For example, NYSDOT’S GreenLITES Project Design Certification Program is a self-certification rating 

system for enhancing the environmental performance of transportation projects. Many of the 

GreenLITES concepts and credits may be applicable to railroad and facilities construction, including 

credits addressing energy and materials. With respect to buildings and facilities, the United States 

Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system is a 

benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings that 

162 / The decrease from 2010 to 2011 was due to a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity due to a 

decrease in coal consumption, with increased natural gas consumption and a significant increase in hydropower used. Additionally, 

relatively mild winter conditions, especially in the South Atlantic Region of the United States where electricity is an important 

heating fuel, resulted in an overall decrease in electricity demand in most sectors. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an 

average annual rate of 0.4 percent. 163/ New York State Climate Action Council. New York State Climate Action Plan Development Process. December 7, 2009. 

<http://www.nyclimatechange.us/>. 164/ New York State, 2009 New York State Energy Plan, December 2009.

Page 4-228 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

includes energy efficiency components. U.S. EPA’s Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program 

designed to identify and promote the construction of new energy efficient buildings, facilities, and 

homes and the purchase of energy efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, 

lighting, home electronics, and building envelopes.

Currently, there are no standards or regulations applicable to GHG emission levels or impacts from 

actions subject to environmental review under NEPA or SEQR. Accordingly, the potential effects of 

the proposed program have been evaluated in the context of their consistency with the objectives 

stated in federal and state policies. Potential GHG emissions from the proposed program are 

assessed and disclosed, and the feasibility and practicability of various measures available for 

reducing GHG emissions are discussed.

4.20.2. Methodology

Potential Impacts of Climate Change

The analysis of impacts of climate change on the proposed program focuses on potential changes in 

sea level and storm surge particularly as they relate to the Hudson River. Existing scientific studies 

and information available from New York State sources were reviewed, and relevant information is 

presented. Due to the uncertain nature of predictions for future climate change impacts on the 

Hudson River, a range of possible effects is presented. Although changes in precipitation may occur 

in future years, affecting flood levels in other areas, the level of detail and certainty regarding those 

types of effects is currently insufficient for planning purposes.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Extent of Analysis

Since the impact of GHGs emitted in the troposphere is generally the same regardless of where they 

are emitted, the analysis of GHGs addresses emissions resulting from the proposed program, 

regardless of their location. Direct emissions include emissions from sources located on-site, such 

as construction equipment during the construction period and locomotive emissions during longterm operation of the program. Indirect emissions include emissions from, vehicle trips associated 

with the program (both increased and reduced) and emissions associated with electricity 

consumption. In addition, there are emissions preceding and following the proposed program, 

referred to as upstream and downstream emissions, such as emissions associated with the 

transport and production of fuels and construction materials, and emissions associated with 

disposal of materials after their use. The GHG analysis addresses both direct and indirect emissions, 

and, where practicable and significant, upstream and downstream emissions as well, including fuel 

and materials production.

Time Scales for Analysis

Operational emissions are presented for a single year, 2035, which would be representative of a 

reasonable worst-case scenario. Operational emissions may be lower in more distant years if the 

carbon content of fuels improve (or is replaced by electric power) and later if locomotives are 

replaced with more efficient models or rebuilt; the reduction in vehicular emissions may also be 

reduced in far-future years as vehicular emissions and fuels also improve; however, the analysis 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-229

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

represents the net reasonable worst-case scenario for the year 2035 based on the best projections 

available. Emissions related to construction activity and embodied materials would occur over a 

period prior to and during construction, and are presented both as total emissions and annualized 

over an estimated 80-year lifetime of the proposed program. 

Emission Calculations

The GHG emissions analysis includes the following sources:

• Locomotives fuel consumption,

• On-road fuel consumption,

• Electricity use (rail only),

• Fuel use for construction material delivery, and

• Building materials production.

Some additional emissions associated with stations and other operations would occur, but are not 

included at this time since detailed data is not yet available.

Annual emissions that would occur as a result of program operation were conservatively calculated 

based on the 2035 ridership scenario, representing the maximum emissions associated with the 

proposed program at full operation. Indirect emissions associated with employee trips and 

deliveries associated with operations were not included. Although some increase in these emissions 

would be expected, details are not available at this time, and these contributions would likely be

minor. 

A minimal change in the amount of solid waste would be generated as a result of the proposed 

program. Therefore emissions from solid waste decomposition were not included. 

Generally, the elimination of vegetation on a site would accelerate the release of CO2 sequestered in 

any vegetation found on the site back to the atmosphere. This would mostly be relevant only for 

the 125 mph alternative, where a new alignment is expected. For other alternatives, it is unknown 

at this time if any tree removal would be required. However, detailed information on this is not 

available at this time, and therefore sequestration has not been included in this analysis. 

The methodology used to calculate the GHG emissions from each included source is provided 

below.

Locomotive and On-Road Fuel Consumption

Emissions associated with the locomotive operations and on-road vehicle trips were calculated 

using the methods in NYSDOT’s MOVES Roadway and Rail Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis 

Extension (MOVES-RREGGAE). This program enables analysis of rail operations and on-road trips, 

using EPA’s MOVES-HVI model for on-road emissions and the analysis procedures in NYSDOT’s 

Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, November 25, 2003 (NYSDOT guidance). 

The locomotive emissions were refined outside of the model to account for the fact that operation 

on the line is not represented by the national averages used in MOVES-RREGGAE for Amtrak 

service, and since more detailed data was available. Fuel consumption was estimated using LTK 

Engineering Services’ TrainOps simulation model. The model includes proposed grades, curves, 

Page 4-230 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

station locations, speed restrictions and switch-related diverging movements specific to the 

proposed program alternatives. Locomotive emissions were calculated by multiplying the fuel 

consumption by emission and energy factors for diesel fuel, assuming 10.15 kilograms of CO2 per 

gallon of diesel and 138,756 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon of diesel.165 These were adjusted 

to account for well-to-pump emissions by the same ratio used for all diesel, consistent with the 

method used throughout the analysis.

Electricity Use

Electricity consumption for the electrified portion of the line (Albany to Buffalo) under the 125 

Alternative was estimated using the TrainOps simulation model. The electricity consumption was 

estimated to be 258,198 kilowatt-hours per day, and would be constant throughout the year. This 

includes system losses within the Amtrak system, but does not include any incremental electricity 

use for facilities or stations, which is unknown at this time.

GHG emissions associated with the electricity were estimated based on the above consumption rate 

and a factor of 686.7 pounds CO2e per megawatt-hour of electricity delivered.166 This represents 

the latest intensity of electricity production for upstate New York. The emissions intensity of future 

electricity production is expected to be lower due to various current and future policies aimed at 

increasing the production of electricity from renewable resources and improved energy efficiency 

in the utility sector. Therefore, this estimate represents a conservatively high estimate of emissions 

associated with the operation of electric locomotives. 

Construction and Materials

The procedures in MOVES-RREGGAE for rail construction were used to calculate estimated GHG 

emissions associated with direct construction emissions. In addition, the “Roadway Construction,” 

module was used for roadway construction segments associated with the construction, and for 

elements such as bridge construction not included in the “Railway Construction” module. Emissions 

associated with materials were calculated as part of the analysis (the methodology for estimating 

“placement energy” is based on energy estimated for materials, as detailed in the NYSDOT 

guidance—both were included here).

4.20.3. Existing Conditions

Consistent with the NYSDOT guidance, GHG analyses are not prepared for existing conditions. In the 

existing condition, passenger and freight railway operations and maintenance use fuel and 

occasionally materials, resulting in some energy use and GHG emissions and offsetting energy use 

and GHG emissions from on-road operations.

165/ EIA, Fuel Emission Coefficients, Table 2: Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Transportation Fuels, 

<http://205.254.135.7/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html#tbl2>, updated January 31, 2011.

166/ U.S. EPA, eGRID1010 Version 1.1, Year 2007 Summary Tables, <http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid>.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-231

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.20.4. Environmental Consequences

Potential Impacts of Climate Change

The analysis of impacts of climate change on the program focuses on potential changes in sea level 

in the context of flooding. Existing scientific studies and information available from New York City 

and State sources were reviewed, and relevant information is presented. Due to the uncertain 

nature of predictions for future climate change impacts, a range of possible effects is presented. 

While future changes in other climate parameters such as temperature, storm frequency, and 

precipitation may have some effect on rail operations, the projections for these parameters are 

much less certain at this time and are therefore not addressed here.

The New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force has adopted projected sea level rise estimates based 

on the best available science.167 In the lower Hudson Valley, sea levels are likely to increase by 12 

to 23 inches by the end of the century, with possible increase up to 55 inches in the event of rapid 

ice melt, and in the Mid-Hudson Valley, sea levels are likely to increase by 8 to 18 inches by the end 

of the century, with possible increase up to 50 inches in the event of rapid ice melt. In general, the 

probability of sea levels increasing is characterized as “extremely likely,” but there is high 

uncertainty regarding the probability of a rapid ice melt scenario. Intense hurricanes are 

characterized as ‘more likely than not’ to increase in intensity and/or frequency, and the likelihood 

of changes in other large storms (“Nor’easters”) are characterized as unknown. Therefore, the 

projections for future 1-in-100 coastal storm surge levels for the area include only sea level rise at 

this time and do not account for changes in storm frequency. Based on the above data, it is 

reasonable to assume that sea level and floodplains would rise by up to 2.0 feet by the end of the 

century, with a smaller chance of increases up to 4.5 feet. Note that in light of more recent scientific 

analyses, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as reviewed by the 

New York City Panel on Climate Change, it is more likely that sea level will rise by a higher level, 

and that the 4.5 feet sea level rise mentioned above would now be near the high end scenario (it is 

no longer seen as a separate ‘rapid ice melt scenario’). The best available data would be reviewed 

when planning to specific elevations occurs.

Most of the rail line from New York City to Albany runs along the eastern shore of the Hudson 

Estuary, much of that within current floodplains or immediately adjacent to the 1-in-100 floodplain 

(the area with a flooding probability of 1-in-100 in any given year). Some of these areas are already 

vulnerable to flooding in the current condition, and by the end of the century, all areas along the 

shore would be within the 1-in-100 floodplain. 

The current program does not propose rebuilding this existing rail line, but rather adjusting and 

upgrading various small sections along the existing line, and therefore, cannot accomplish major 

changes such as raising the elevation of the track or relocating track to areas outside of the future 

floodplain. However, NYSDOT will coordinate with state and federal agencies regarding potential 

actions for adapting to future climate conditions in order to avoid repeated construction work. 

Potential mitigation strategies to address sea level rise/flooding are addressed under Section 

4.20.5.

167/ New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, Report to the Legislature, December 31, 2010.

Page 4-232 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Alternative 90A

The estimated increase in energy use and ensuing GHG emissions associated with Alternative 90A 

are presented in Exhibit 4-47.

Alternative 90B

The estimated increase in energy use and ensuing GHG emissions associated with Alternative 90B 

are presented in Exhibit 4-48.

Exhibit 4-47—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 

90A

Energy Use

(million Btu)

GHG Emissions

(metric tons CO2e)

Rail Operation (per year) 335,567 24,641

Rail Maintenance (per year) 47,827 3,501

On-Road Maintenance (per year) -22,348 -1,636

On-Road Operation (per year) -684,691 -54,230

Net (per year) -323,645 -27,724

Construction (total) 7,496,478 548,762

Offset Period (years) 23 20

Notes:

Negative numbers indicate reduction as compared to Base Alternative.

Includes well-to-pump emissions for both on-road and rail components. 

Exhibit 4-48—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 

90B

Energy Use

(million Btu)

GHG Emissions

(metric tons CO2e)

Rail Operation (per year) 357,886 26,280

Rail Maintenance (per year) 47,827 3,501

On-Road Maintenance (per year) -25,241 -1,848

On-Road Operation (per year) -771,699 -61,121

Net (per year) -391,227 -33,188

Construction (total) 21,104,757 1,544,912

Offset Period (years) 54 47

Notes:

Negative numbers indicate reduction as compared to Base Alternative.

Includes well-to-pump emissions for both on-road and rail components. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-233

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 110

The estimated increase in energy use and ensuing GHG emissions associated with Alternative 110 

are presented in Exhibit 4-49.

Alternative 125

The estimated increase in energy use and ensuing GHG emissions associated with Alternative 125 

are presented in Exhibit 4-50.

Exhibit 4-49—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 

110

Energy Use

(million Btu)

GHG Emissions

(metric tons CO2e)

Rail Operation (per year) 404,035 29,669

Rail Maintenance (per year) 47,827 3,501

On-Road Maintenance (per year) -26,962 -1,974

On-Road Operation (per year) -823,256 -65,204

Net (per year) -398,355 -34,008

Construction (total) 36,468,799 2,669,614

Offset Period (years) 92 78

Notes:

Negative numbers indicate reduction as compared to Base Alternative.

Includes well-to-pump emissions for both on-road and rail components. 

Exhibit 4-50—Net Energy Use and GHG Emissions as Compared with Base Alternative, Alternative 

125

Energy Use

(million Btu)

GHG Emissions

(metric tons CO2e)

Rail Operation (per year) 635,672 52,398

Rail Maintenance (per year) 133,071 9,741

On-Road Maintenance (per year) -42,464 -3,109

On-Road Operation (per year) -1,290,655 -102,221

Net (per year) -564,376 -43,191

Construction (total) 178,996,609 13,103,131

Offset Period (years) 317 303

Notes:

Negative numbers indicate reduction as compared to Base Alternative.

Includes well-to-pump emissions for both on-road and rail components. 

Page 4-234 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Discussion

For the non-electric alternatives, rail energy and emissions slightly increase from Alternative 90A 

to Alternative 90B to Alternative 110 due to the slight increase in train trips and the increased 

acceleration and deceleration for the 110 Alternative in locations where the track is not capable of 

supporting the 110-miles per hour speed. Alternative 125 would have substantially more rail 

energy and emissions associated with added train trips, including both diesel and indirect 

electricity emissions. The benefits from removing vehicle trips from the road trend in the opposite 

direction with ridership and the ensuing energy and emissions benefits increase from Alternative 

90A to Alternative 90B to Alternative 110, and are substantially higher for Alternative 125. The net 

annual operational benefits range from approximately 323 to nearly 564 billion Btu per year and 

28,000 to 43,000 metric tons CO2e per year. This is roughly equivalent to eliminating the emissions 

associated with the energy and electricity consumption of 2,500 to 4,200 average U.S. single family 

homes every year.168

The total potential annual operational emissions savings, the initial investment of energy and 

associated emissions from construction activity and the production and delivery of materials used 

for construction, and the net energy and emissions payback period are presented in Exhibit 4-47

through Exhibit 4-50, above. Alternative 90A has the smallest annual benefit but would also 

require the shortest period to offset the emissions, 20 years, while Alternative 125 with the largest 

annual benefit would require the longest period to offset those emissions—317 years. The 

differences between the alternatives are mostly based on the construction emissions since the 

ridership differences are comparatively small. Given the potential for other future changes aimed 

at reducing the footprint of energy use such as renewable electricity and fuels, it is unlikely that the 

construction emissions from Alternatives 90B, 110, or 125 would ever actually be offset, given 

potential future changes in on-road technology. Regardless, from a global climate perspective, if it 

did require 50 years or more to payback the emissions, no real benefit would be shown this 

century, which is the main focus of current climate analyses. 

For a discussion of potential measures aimed at reducing both construction and operation 

emissions, which may be investigated in order to reduce GHG emissions, see the discussion of 

potential mitigation strategies below. Note that the method for estimating the construction 

emissions has a large level of uncertainty associated with it, and it has been suggested that this 

method substantially overestimates the impact of construction.169 If, for example, this conservative 

estimate is overestimated by a factor of five, the time required to offset construction emissions 

could range from 4 to 60 years, which may be considered a reasonable payback period. 

4.20.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Since global climate change is caused cumulatively by world-wide activity, the impact of a specific 

program on climate change cannot be determined. Therefore, the approach applied here for 

evaluating the potential impact of the program is to identify the program’s potential GHG emissions, 

and to evaluate whether it incorporates cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy 

168/ Based on U.S. EPA’s GHG Equivalencies Calculator, <http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html>. 169/ U.S. Congress—Congressional Budget Office, Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings of Different Modes, December 

1977.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-235

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

measures into its design, construction, and operation to the maximum extent practicable, consistent 

with social, economic and other essential considerations. By doing so, the program would 

demonstrate consistency with state and local policies.

Since this is a Tier 1 EIS, the details of design, construction, and operation are not yet fully available. 

Therefore, this section identifies potential measures for inclusion, which would reduce the 

program’s energy and GHG footprint if implemented. These measures will be further investigated, 

and if found to be practicable, incorporated in the program’s design and operation.

Operational:

• Shift Locomotives to Biodiesel Fuel—Options to use biodiesel for the locomotives will be 

investigated, including blends of B20 and B100 (20 percent biodiesel with 80 percent standard 

diesel, or pure biodiesel). B20 can be used with current technology while B100 may require 

some adjustments or new engines. The use of B20 would reduce GHG emissions by 10 percent, 

and B100 would reduce GHG emissions by 70 percent, reducing operational emissions by 2,300 

to 3,000 metric tons CO2e annually (varies by alternative).

• Electrification—The benefits of shifting rail operations along the entire line to electricity have 

not been quantified at this time. Benefits would increase over the years as the New York grid 

shifts to increasingly higher fractions of renewable power sources (the New York grid currently 

includes relatively large fractions of nuclear and hydro power, which result in very little GHG 

emissions).

• Sustainable Station Design and Construction—Although station energy use was not included 

in this analysis, new stations would be designed in accordance with the requirement of 

Executive Order 111, “Green and Clean” State Buildings and Vehicles Guidelines (NYSERDA, 

2004), outperforming state energy code by 20 percent.

Construction:

• Use of Local, Renewable, Recycled Materials—75 percent of the construction emissions were 

estimated to come from the extraction, production, transport, and disposal of construction 

materials. Although precise details are not known at this time, the reduction in these emissions 

can be substantial if local, renewable, and recycled materials are used. The largest contributors 

are cement and steel. If emissions associated with material can be cut in half (existing strategies 

demonstrate that this is possible), the emissions payback period could be reduced by nearly 40 

percent, resulting in payback periods of 12, 29, 49, 190 years for Alternative 90A, 90B, 110, and 

125, respectively.

• Biodiesel for Construction Engines—Biodiesel blends would be used in construction engines 

to the extent practicable.

• Replanting Trees—Although not quantified here, any trees that need to be removed for 

construction would be replaced with a larger number of trees, replacing the trees in kind or 

more on a tree-mass basis.

Page 4-236 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change

Examples of mitigation measures that have been employed in other areas to respond to potential 

impacts of sea-level rise include installing flood barriers, raising mechanical and electrical 

equipment, waterproofing, installation of pumps, and locating or relocating facilities such as rail 

yards outside of low-lying floodprone areas. 

Since the rail line along the eastern shore of the Hudson would need to be moved or elevated in the 

future to accommodate increased flooding due to sea level rise, NYSDOT will coordinate with state 

and federal agencies regarding potential measures for adapting to future climate conditions in 

order to avoid repeated construction work. Mitigation measures instituted by Metro-North along 

the Hudson Line in response to flooding during recent storm events include elevating power supply 

components, raising critical substation equipment at key locations, and making power equipment 

watertight where possible. Mitigation being investigated by Metro-North will also explore ways to 

make signal and communication equipment watertight and elevate signal boxes and other onground signal equipment to minimize susceptibility to flooding. Future installation of water level 

monitoring and alarm devices at critical locations like power substations, yards, and stations will 

provide Metro-North management with the information to facilitate power shutoffs and avoid 

equipment damage and risks to customer and employee safety. MTA is also planning to purchase a 

rail vacuum machine, which are rail-mounted machines with digging arms and vacuum pumps, to 

reduce track flooding. 

Along the Mohawk River portion of the Erie Canal, which closely parallels portions of the Empire 

Corridor West, certain components of the water control structures along the historic canal system 

cannot be removed prior to a major flood event. The New York State Canal Corporation is planning 

to modify the water control structures by installing movable dams to remove the hydraulic 

obstructions at lower dams. These types of mitigation measures, including those proposed by other 

entities, will be further investigated and addressed in future design phases as part of Tier 2.

4.20.6. Future Analysis

In the Tier 2 analysis, per NYSDEC Policy, “Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement,” (issued July 15, 2009) detailed GHG reduction 

measures may be reviewed and evaluated for applicability and practicability, and incorporated in 

the program as appropriate. The benefits of measures will be quantified if practicable. If 

substantial changes in design occur, the overall GHG emissions will be reevaluated as well, and 

further refined if possible.

4.21. Noise and Vibration

The proposed program alternatives could alter rail operations (i.e. speed, frequency, alignment) in 

the corridor, which would affect noise and vibration levels at sensitive locations in proximity to the 

rail right-of-way. This chapter assesses the potential for adverse impacts due to changes in rail 

operations along the Empire Corridor between New York City and Niagara Falls.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-237

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.21.1. Regulatory Context

Noise

A noise assessment was conducted using the methodology set forth in both the FRA guideline 

document, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment170 for the highspeed rail noise/vibration analyses and the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) guidance 

manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment171 for the Amtrak, CSXT, and the MetroNorth noise/vibration analyses. 

Both FRA and FTA guidance manuals define noise criteria based on the specific type of land use that 

would be affected, with explicit operational noise impact criteria for three land use categories. These 

impact criteria are based on either peak 1-hour equivalent noise level (Leq(1h)) or 24-hour day-night 

equivalent noise level (Ldn) values. The hourly equivalent sound level is the level of a steady sound 

that has the equivalent sound energy as does a time-varying sound over a peak 1-hour period. A 

day-night equivalent sound level is a 24-hour average adjusted for average-day sound source 

operations. In the case of rail noise, a single operation is equivalent to a single vehicle pass-by. The 

adjustment includes a 10 decibel penalty for vehicle pass-bys occurring between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Exhibit 4-51 describes the land use categories defined in the FRA and FTA reports, and provides noise

metrics used for determining operational noise impacts. Land uses that are noise-sensitive, but where 

people do not sleep, are described in Exhibit 4-51, Categories 1 and 3. These require examination using 

the 1-hour Leq descriptor for the noisiest peak hour. Category 2, which includes residences, hospitals, and 

other locations where nighttime sensitivity to noise is very important, requires examination using the 24-

hour Ldn descriptor.

Exhibit 4-51 expresses the criteria in terms of the increase in total or cumulative noise that can 

occur in the overall noise environment before impact occurs. The impact criteria are keyed to the 

noise level generated by the program (called “program noise exposure”) in locations of varying 

existing noise levels. Two types of impacts—moderate and severe—are defined for each land use 

category, depending on existing noise levels. Thus, where existing noise levels are 40 dBA, as in 

Land Use Categories 1 and 2, the respective Leq and Ldn noise exposure from the program would 

create moderate impacts if they were above approximately 50 dBA, and would create severe 

impacts if they were above approximately 55 dBA. For category 3, a project noise exposure level 

above approximately 55 dBA would be considered a moderate impact, and above approximately 60 

dBA would be considered a severe impact. A noise level change that a significant percentage of 

people would find annoying is described as severe. A change in noise level that is noticeable to most 

people but would not necessarily result in strong adverse reactions from the community is 

described as moderate.

Vibration

The FRA/FTA criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the 

maximum levels for a single event. The impact criteria as defined in the FRA/FTA guidance manual are 

shown in Exhibit 4-52. The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are expressed in terms of root 

170/ U.S. Department of Transportation, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Railroad Development, Washington, D.C., September 1998.

171/ U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06, Federal Transit 

Administration, Washington, D.C., May 2006.

Page 4-238 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

mean square [rms] velocity levels in decibels and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne noise are 

expressed in terms of A-weighted sound level.

The limits are specified for the three land use categories defined below:

• Vibration Category 1: High Sensitivity—This category includes buildings where it is essential 

that ambient vibration be kept very low for the operations within the building, which may be 

well below levels associated with human annoyance. Typical land uses are vibration-sensitive 

research and manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations.

Exhibit 4-51—FRA's and FTA's Land Use Category and Metrics for Train Noise Criteria

Land Use 

Category

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category

1 Outdoor Leq(h)* Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in the intended purpose. This 

category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor 

amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with 

significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels, where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance.

3 Outdoor Leq(h)* Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes 

schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such 

activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for study 

or meditation associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds and 

recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical 

sites and parks are also included.

Note: * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.

Exhibit 4-52—Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria

Land Use Category

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro Pascals)

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would 

interfere with interior operations

65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4

Category 2: Residences and buildings where 

people normally sleep

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime use

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Notes:

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall 

into this category.

2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk 

lines have this many operations.

3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most 

commuter rail systems.

4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical 

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable 

vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and 

stiffened floors.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-239

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Vibration Category 2: Residential—This category covers all residential land uses and any 

buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. No differentiation is made between 

different types of residential areas. This is primarily because ground-borne vibration and noise 

are experienced indoors and building occupants have practically no means to reduce their

exposure. Even in a noisy urban area, the bedrooms often will be quiet in buildings that have 

effective noise insulation and tightly closed windows. Hence, an occupant of a bedroom in a 

noisy urban area is likely to be just as sensitive to ground-borne noise and vibration as 

someone in a quiet suburban area.

• Vibration Category 3: Institutional—This category includes schools, churches, other 

institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the 

potential for activity interference.

4.21.2. Methodology

Noise

The analysis of airborne noise was performed using procedures set forth in the FRA and FTA guidance 

manuals. Following the methodologies set forth in this document, airborne noise impacts should be 

analyzed using a three-step process that consists of a screening procedure, a general noise assessment, 

and a detailed noise analysis. The screening procedure is performed first to determine whether any 

noise-sensitive receptors are within distances where impacts are likely to occur. If the screening reveals 

that there are noise-sensitive receptors in locations where impacts are likely to occur, then a general 

noise assessment is performed to determine locations where noise impacts could occur. If this general 

assessment indicates that a potential for noise impact does exist, then a detailed noise analysis may be 

necessary. The detailed analysis methodology is used to predict impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of 

mitigation with greater precision than can be achieved with the general noise assessment. This level of 

analysis would typically be conducted for a project-level or Tier 2 EIS. 

• Step 1—NOISE SCREENING: The methodology begins with a noise screening to determine 

whether any noise-sensitive receptors are within a distance where an impact is likely to occur. 

According to the FTA screening methodology, potential impacts may occur if noise receptors 

are within 750 feet from the track centerline for unobstructed sensitive receptors, or 375 feet 

from the track centerline for obstructed sensitive receptors. According to the FRA screening 

methodology, potential impacts may occur if noise receptors are within 900 feet from the track 

centerline for quiet suburban land uses, or 450 feet from the track centerline for urban land 

uses. Based upon the screening procedure result, there were noise sensitive receptors within 

these distances along the corridor, and therefore, a General Noise Assessment was performed to 

determine the potential for adverse effects at specific distances from the right-of-way. 

• Step 2—GENERAL NOISE ASSESSMENT: The general noise assessment methodology consists 

of determining a project noise exposure at 50 feet from the centerline of track, and comparing 

the calculated levels with the criteria based on land use categories. The calculations to predict 

the noise levels from the increased train speed and change in the alignment along the rail line 

branch take into account: the type of trains and type of locomotives, number of trains and 

number of locomotives on each train, the speed of the trains, characteristics of the track, and 

the time of day. For the high-speed train rail noise assessment, the general noise assessment 

methodology is presented in Chapter 4.2 of the FRA Manual. For the Amtrak, CSXT, and the 

Page 4-240 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Metro-North assessment, the general noise assessment methodology is presented in Chapter 5 

of the FTA Manual.

• Step 3—DETAILED NOISE Analysis: A detailed noise assessment is beyond the scope and 

detail that will be provided in the Tier 1 assessment and provides the highest degree of 

accuracy using site-specific information. The detailed noise analysis utilizes additional 

information not included in the General Noise Assessment, including topographic information. 

Noise impacts identified in the detailed noise analysis often require detailed evaluation of 

mitigation measures. As discussed above, the detailed noise assessment would be conducted in 

any Tier 2 EIS/EA or project-level environmental document if the results of the General Noise 

Assessment indicate that a selected alternative would potentially result in an adverse impact. 

Vibration

The vibration analysis for the program alternatives was performed using the procedures described in the 

FRA/FTA guidance manuals. To examine potential impacts during operation, the guidance documents 

(similar to the approach for assessing noise) lay out a three-step approach for the analysis of vibration 

and ground-borne noise: a screening procedure, a general assessment methodology, and a detailed 

analysis methodology. The screening procedure is used to determine whether any noise-sensitive 

receptors are within distances where impacts are likely to occur; the general assessment methodology is 

used to determine locations or rail segments where there is the potential for impacts; and the detailed 

analysis methodology is used to predict impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation with greater 

precision than can be achieved with the general assessment, which would typically be conducted for a 

project-level or Tier 2 EIS. 

4.21.3. Existing Conditions

The program corridor of the alignment currently experiences Amtrak service and CSXT freight service 

throughout much of the program corridor, and Metro-North Railroad (MNR) commuter rail service 

operates between New York City and Poughkeepsie. The corridor was divided into the following 

segments: New York City to Croton; Croton to Poughkeepsie; Poughkeepsie to Albany; Albany to 

Schenectady; Schenectady to Hoffmans; Hoffmans to Utica; Utica to Syracuse; Syracuse to Rochester; 

Rochester to Buffalo;and Buffalo to Niagara Falls. Based on information provided by the land use 

assessment (see Section 4.2, “Land Use”), and aerial photographs, various noise sensitive land uses 

(i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, institution, open space, etc.) are located in the vicinity of 

the corridor. Train movement on each segment is described below.

New York City to Croton

This segment is located between New York City (Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan) and Croton 

Harmon. The existing line operators include Amtrak, CSX, and MNR. There are approximately 169 

trains operating per day and 42 trains per night. For the purposes of the noise and vibration impact 

assessment, the maximum speed is 75 mph.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-241

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Croton to Poughkeepsie

This segment is located between Croton and Poughkeepsie. The existing line operators include 

Amtrak, CSX, and MNR. There are approximately 239 trains operated per day and 70 trains per 

night. For the purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 90 

mph.

Poughkeepsie to Albany

This segment is located between Poughkeepsie and Albany. The existing line operators include 

Amtrak and CSX. There are approximately 24 trains operating per day and 8 trains per night. For 

the purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 110 mph.

Albany to Schenectady

This segment is located between Albany and Schenectady. The existing line operators include 

Amtrak and CSX. There are approximately 14 trains operating per day and there is no train source 

at night. For the purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 110 

mph.

Schenectady to Hoffmans

This segment is located between Schenectady and Hoffmans. The existing line operators include 

Amtrak and CSX. There are approximately 12 trains operating per day, and there is no train source 

at night. For the purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 110 

mph.

Hoffmans to Utica

This segment is located between Hoffmans and Utica. The existing line operators include Amtrak

and CSX. There are approximately 35 trains operating per day and 26 trains per night. For the 

purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 79 mph.

Utica to Syracuse

This segment is located between Utica and Syracuse. The existing line operators include Amtrak

and CSX. There are approximately 44 trains operating per day and 30 trains per night. For the 

purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 79 mph.

Syracuse to Rochester

This segment is located between Syracuse and Rochester. The existing line operators include 

Amtrak and CSX. There are approximately 43 trains operating per day and 33 trains per night. For 

the purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 79 mph.

Page 4-242 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Rochester to Buffalo

This segment is located between Rochester and Buffalo. The existing line operators include Amtrak

and CSX. There are approximately 51 trains operating per day and 48 trains per night. For the 

purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 79 mph.

Buffalo to Niagara Falls

This segment is located between Buffalo and Niagara Falls. The existing line operators include 

Amtrak and CSX. There are approximately 10 trains operating per day and 16 trains per night. For 

the purposes of the noise and vibration impact assessment, the maximum speed is 60 mph.

For sensitive receptors located between 30 and 120 feet from the track centerline, the predicted existing 

day-night equivalent noise level (Ldn) would range from 65 dBA to 70 dBA Ldn for the overall program 

corridor. Exhibit 4-53 summarizes the existing train movements and predicted existing noise levels on 

the entire corridor.

Exhibit 4-53—Existing Empire Corridor Train Movements and Noise Levels

Segment 

Number

Segment 

Description Operator

Number of Trains Number of 

Cars per 

Train

Number of 

Locomotives per 

Train

Max

Speed 

(mph)

Existing 

Noise, Ldn* Peak 

Hour

10pm7am7am10pm

1 New York City to 

Croton

Amtrak 3 24 2 5 1 75

65-70

CSX 0 2 4 60 3 40

MNR-electric 12 92 22 8 0 75

MNR-diesel 7 51 14 6 1 75

2 Croton to 

Poughkeepsie

Amtrak 1 23 3 5 1 90 65-70 CSX 0 2 4 60 3 50

MNR-diesel 8 45 21 6 1 90

3 Poughkeepsie to 

Albany

Amtrak 3 22 4 5 1 110 65-70

CSX 1 2 4 60 3 50

4 Albany to 

Schenectady

Amtrak 2 12 0 6 1 110 65-70

CSX 1 2 0 20 1 50

5 Schenectady to 

Hoffmans

Amtrak 2 8 0 6 1 100 65-70

CSX 0 4 0 30 2 50

6 Hoffmans to Utica Amtrak 1 8 0 6 1 79 65-70

CSX 10 27 26 80 3 60

7 Utica to Syracuse Amtrak 1 8 0 6 1 79 65-70

CSX 12 36 30 80 3 60

8 Syracuse to 

Rochester

Amtrak 2 6 2 6 1 79 65-70

CSX 14 37 31 80 3 60

9 Rochester to 

Buffalo

Amtrak 1 6 2 6 1 79 65-70

CSX 21 45 46 80 3 60

10 Buffalo to Niagara 

Falls

Amtrak 1 3 3 6 1 60 65-70

CSX 5 7 13 80 3 40

Note: The information on existing train movements in this table is based on data from LTK Engineering Services on February 7, 2012.

* Estimated existing noise levels (Ldn) were predicted based on Table 5-7 of the FTA Manual.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-243

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.21.4. Environmental Consequences

Noise

Using the methodology described previously, the noise analysis for the Tier I EIS consists of a noise 

screening procedure and a general noise assessment to determine potential impacts in the vicinity 

of the corridor. Potential noise impacts with the proposed Empire Corridor program were 

evaluated along the entire track segments. Based upon the screening results, there are sensitive 

receptors within 750 feet from the track centerline for unobstructed sensitive receptors and 375 

feet from the track centerline for obstructed sensitive receptors. Consequently, the general noise 

assessment was performed using procedures set forth in the FRA and the FTA guidance manuals. 

The general noise assessment methodology consists of determining the project noise exposure at 

50 feet from the centerline of track and comparing the calculated levels with allowable levels based 

on land use categories shown in Table 3-1 in the FRA and the FTA guidance manuals. 

Train Input

For the purposes of understanding noise sources along the corridor, both Existing and Alternatives 

(i.e., base, 90A, 90B, 110, and 125) train data were collected and used as train input data for noise 

calculations. The existing and alternatives train movements on the entire corridor are listed in Exhibit 

4-54.

Base Alternative

Under the Base Alternative, the calculations to predict the noise levels from the increased train 

activity along the corridor take into account the number of trains and number of locomotives on 

each train, the speed of the trains, and time of day. Exhibit 4-55 shows the results of the general 

noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline, the 

general noise assessment concludes that the potential for noise impacts will occur from Segment 1 

through Segment 4 (from New York City through Schenectady), Segment 8 (Syracuse to Rochester),

and Segment 10 (Buffalo to Niagara Falls). The methodology for impact assessment is based on the 

change in noise levels from existing to future conditions, and the Base Alternative reflects the 

adverse effects of currently known future changes in rail use, including future projected increases 

in freight traffic and Metro-North commuter rail traffic. Consequently, these results indicate that a 

detailed noise analysis is necessary to determine whether noise levels will exceed the applicable 

impact criteria.

Alternative 90A

Under the Alternative 90A, the calculations to predict the noise levels from the increased train 

activity along the corridor take into account the number of trains and number of locomotives on 

each train, the speed of the trains, and time of day. Exhibit 4-55 shows the results of the general 

noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline, the 

general noise assessment concludes that the potential for noise impacts would occur from Segment 

1 through Segment 4 (from New York City through Schenectady), Segment 8 (Syracuse to 

Rochester), and Segment 10 (Buffalo to Niagara Falls). Consequently, these results indicate that a 

detailed noise analysis is necessary to determine whether noise levels would exceed the applicable

Page 4-244 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-54—Existing and Alternative Train Movements

Segment 

Number Segment Description Operator

Number of Trains

Max Speed 

(mph)

Existing Base 90A 90B 110 125

1 New York City to 

Croton

Amtrak 26 26 34 34 34 48 75

CP 0 6 6 6 6 6 40

CSX 6 13 13 13 13 13 40

MNR-Electric 114 102 102 102 102 102 75

MNR-Diesel 65 75 75 75 75 75 90

2 Croton to 

Poughkeepsie

Amtrak 26 26 34 34 34 48 90

CP 0 6 6 6 6 6 50

CSX 6 13 13 13 13 13 50

MNR-Diesel 66 76 76 76 76 76 90

3 Poughkeepsie to 

Albany

Amtrak 26 26 34 34 34 48 110

CP 0 9 9 9 9 9 50

CSX 6 10 10 10 10 10 50

4 Albany to Schenectady Amtrak 12 12 14 14 14 12 110

CP 0 6 6 6 6 6 50

CSX 2 4 4 4 4 4 50

5 Schenectady to 

Hoffmans

Amtrak 8 8 14 14 14 8 110

CSX 4 2 2 2 2 2 50

6 Hoffmans to Utica Amtrak 8 8 14 14 14 8 110

CSX 53 55 55 55 55 55 60

7 Utica to Syracuse Amtrak 8 8 14 14 14 8 110

CSX 66 70 70 70 70 70 60

8 Syracuse-Rochester Amtrak 8 8 14 14 14 8 90

CSX 68 75 75 75 75 75 60

9 Rochester-Buffalo Amtrak 8 8 14 14 14 8 90

CSX 91 86 86 86 86 86 60

10 Buffalo-Niagara Falls Amtrak 6 6 12 12 12 12 60

CSX 20 37 37 37 37 37 40

11* Albany-Syracuse HST 0 0 0 0 0 30 125

12* Syracuse-Rochester HST 0 0 0 0 0 30 125

13* Rochester-Buffalo HST 0 0 0 0 0 30 125

Note: The information on existing train movements in this table is based on data from LTK Engineering Services on February 7, 2012

* A two-track grade-separated corridor dedicated to high speed passenger service approximately 280 miles from Albany/Rensselaer station to 

Buffalo Exchange Street station.

HST=high-speed train

impact criteria. However, with Alternative 90A, no increase from the Base Alternative (Future No 

Action) Alternative is estimated to occur between New York City and Schenectady, and the increase 

in projected noise level over the Base Alternative between Hoffmans and Rochester would be 

imperceptible (0 to 2 dBA). 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-245

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-55—General Noise Assessment Results at 50 feet for Program Alternatives

Segment 

Number Segment

Existing 

Noise, 

Ldn (dBA)

Alternatives Noise, Ldn (dBA) Program Ldn(dBA) Criteria

Impact

Base 90A 90B 110 125 Impact Severe 

Impact

1 New York City to 

Croton 70 73 73 73 73 74 64 69 Severe

2 Croton to 

Poughkeepsie 70 74 74 74 74 74 64 69 Severe

3 Poughkeepsie to 

Albany 70 73 73 73 73 73 64 69 Severe

4 Albany to Schenectady 70 71 71 71 71 71 64 69 Severe

5 Schenectady to 

Hoffmans 70 NC* 58 57 58 NC* 64 69 None

6 Hoffmans to Utica 70 61 63 63 63 61 64 69 None

7 Utica to Syracuse 70 61 63 63 63 61 64 69 None

8 Syracuse to Rochester 70 64 65 65 65 64 64 69 Moderate

9 Rochester to Buffalo 70 NC* 61 61 62 NC* 64 69 None

10 Buffalo to Niagara Falls 70 72 72 72 72 72 64 69 Severe

Note: Estimated existing noise levels (Ldn) were predicted based on Table 5-7 of the FTA Manual.

* NC: Program noise level remain “No Change” because of no increment on train movements from existing to future conditions.

Alternative 90B

Under the Alternative 90B, the calculations to predict the noise levels from the increased train 

activity along the corridor take into account the number of trains and number of locomotives on 

each train, the speed of the trains, and time of day. Exhibit 4-55 shows the results of the general 

noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline, the 

general noise assessment concludes that the potential for noise impacts would occur from Segment 

1 through Segment 4 (from New York City through Schenectady), Segment 8 (Syracuse to 

Rochester), and Segment 10 (Buffalo to Niagara Falls). Consequently, these results indicate that a 

detailed noise analysis is necessary to determine whether noise levels would exceed the applicable 

impact criteria. However, with Alternative 90B, no increase from the Base Alternative (Future No 

Action) Alternative is estimated to occur between New York City and Schenectady, and the increase 

in projected noise level over the Base Alternative between Hoffmans and Rochester would be 

imperceptible (0 to 2 dBA). 

Alternative 110

Under the Alternative 110, the calculations to predict the noise levels from the increased train 

activity along the corridor take into account the number of trains and number of locomotives on 

each train, the speed of the trains, and time of day. Exhibit 4-55 shows the results of the general 

noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline, the 

general noise assessment concludes that the potential for noise impacts would occur from Segment 

1 through Segment 4 (from New York City through Schenectady), Segment 8 (Syracuse to 

Rochester), and Segment 10 (Buffalo to Niagara Falls). Consequently, these results indicate that a 

detailed noise analysis is necessary to determine whether noise levels would exceed the applicable 

impact criteria. However, with Alternative 110, no increase from the Base Alternative (Future No 

Action) Alternative is estimated to occur between New York City and Schenectady, and the increase 

Page 4-246 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

in projected noise level over the Base Alternative between Hoffmans and Rochester would be 

imperceptible (0 to 2 dBA). 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would construct a two-track grade-separated corridor dedicated to high speed 

passenger service approximately 280 miles from Albany/Rensselaer station to Buffalo Exchange 

Street station. Trains would operate on the existing Hudson Line Corridor from New York Penn 

station to Albany/Rensselaer station. Within the densely-developed areas around Albany, Syracuse, 

Rochester and Buffalo, the new corridor would parallel the existing corridor on a combination of 

new and existing right-of-way to serve existing stations in these cities. Elevated tracks would be 

used within each of the station-stop cities on this section. 

The calculations to predict the noise levels from the increased train activity along the corridor take 

into account the numbers of trains and locomotives on each train, the speed of the trains, and time 

of day. The assessment was based upon the new corridor track conditions (i.e., existing right-ofway segment, new at-grade segment, and new elevated segment). The assessment results are 

shown as follows

Existing Right-of-Way Segment

Exhibit 4-55 shows the results of the general noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance 

of 50 feet from the track centerline, the general noise assessment concludes that the potential for 

noise impacts would occur from Segment 1 through Segment 4 (from New York City through 

Schenectady), Segment 8 (Syracuse to Rochester), and Segment 10 (Rochester to Niagara Falls). 

Following the FTA’s methodology, these results indicate that a detailed noise analysis is necessary 

to determine whether noise levels would exceed the applicable impact criteria. However, with 

Alternative 125, no increase from the Base (Future No Action) Alternative is estimated to occur 

along Empire Corridor, along which existing (Regional) service will be maintained, with the 

exception of a projected 1 dBA increase along the segment between New York City and Croton. 

Increases of 3 dBA are considered to be imperceptible.

New at-grade segment

Exhibit 4-56 shows the results of the general noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance 

of 50 feet from the track centerline, the general noise assessment concludes that the potential for 

noise impacts would occur from Segment 11 through Segment 13 (from Albany through Buffalo). 

These results indicate that a detailed noise analysis is necessary to determine whether noise levels 

would exceed the applicable impact criteria.

New elevated segment

Exhibit 4-57 shows the results of the general noise assessment. At sensitive receptors at a distance 

of 50 feet from the track centerline, the general noise assessment concludes that the potential for 

noise impacts would occur for four new elevated segments (i.e., Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and 

Buffalo). These results indicate that a detailed noise analysis is necessary to determine whether 

noise levels would exceed the applicable impact criteria.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-247

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-56—General Noise Assessment Results at 50 feet for Alternative 125 New at-grade 

Segment

Segment Number Segment 

Description Existing Noise, Ldn Program Noise, Ldn

Program Ldn Criteria

Impact

Impact Severe 

Impact

11 Albany to Syracuse 45 64 52 59 Severe

12 Syracuse to Rochester 45 64 52 59 Severe

13 Rochester to Buffalo 45 66 52 59 Severe

Note: Estimated existing noise levels (Ldn) were predicted based on Table 4-5 of the FRA Manual.

Exhibit 4-57—General Noise Assessment Results at 50 feet for New Elevated Segment

Segment Number Segment 

Description Existing Noise, Ldn Program Noise, Ldn

Program Ldn Criteria

Impact

Impact Severe 

Impact

11 Albany 70 73 64 69 Severe

12 Syracuse 70 68 64 69 Moderate

13 Rochester 70 69 64 69 Severe

14 Buffalo 70 73 64 69 Severe

Note: Estimated existing noise levels (Ldn) were predicted based on Table 4-5 of the FRA Manual.

Warning Horn Noise

Potential noise impacts due to the corridor rail-road crossing with horns were evaluated along the 

entire corridor track segments that would be affected by the proposed new service. According to 

the FTA screening methodology, potential impacts may occur if noise receptors are within 1,600 

feet and 1,200 feet from the right-of-way for obstructed conditions and unobstructed conditions, 

respectively. Based upon the screening procedure results, there are noise receptors within these 

distances along the corridor, and therefore, a General Noise Assessment would be necessary as part

of any Tier 2 study to determine the potential for adverse effects at specific distances from the 

right-of-way. 

Vibration

Potential vibration impacts were evaluated along the entire corridor track segments that would be 

affected by the proposed new service. Potential impacts may occur if vibration receptors are within 

220 and 160 feet from the right-of-way for residential uses and institutional uses, respectively. 

Based upon the screening procedure results, there are vibration receptors within these distances 

along the corridor segments, and therefore, a General Noise Assessment would be necessary in any 

Tier 2 document to determine the potential for adverse effects at specific distances from the new 

corridor segments. 

Page 4-248 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.21.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Noise

The general noise assessment presented in Section 4.21.4 shows that the program would have the 

potential for moderate noise impacts on the segment of Syracuse to Rochester, and severe noise 

impacts on the segments of New York City to Croton, Croton to Poughkeepsie, Poughkeepsie to 

Albany, Albany to Schenectady, Buffalo to Niagara Falls, Albany to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, 

and Rochester to Buffalo. Between Tier 1 and Tier 2, specific impact information on these segments 

will be explored to: (1) determine noise impact distances from the centerline of tracks, (2) 

determine any sensitive noise receivers located within the impacted distances, and (3) determine 

where a more comprehensive analysis would be needed. 

For Tier 2 studies, more comprehensive analyses will provide prediction of impacts with a greater 

degree of precision and the assessment of the effectiveness of mitigation, similar to the general 

assessment results in the prediction of impacts. More detailed preliminary engineering design and 

operational data will be available and can be incorporated into the impact analysis. Data used for 

the detail noise analysis is more accurate, detailed and specific than the data used for the general 

noise assessment. In addition, as part of the Tier 2 studies, mitigation options would be explored. 

These mitigation options would typically fall into three categories: noise source mitigation 

measures; path control measures; and receptor control measures. Source control measures may 

include:

• Vehicle and equipment noise specifications;

• Operational restrictions;

• Resilient or damped wheel treatments;

• Vehicle skirts, uncap absorption;

• Spin-slide control measures;

• Wheel truing;

• Rail grinding;

• Turn radii greater than 1000 feet;

• Rail lubrication on sharp curves; and

• Movable-point frogs. 

Path controls measures may include:

• Sound barriers,

• Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments,

• Acquisition of buffer zones,

• Ballast on at-grade and/or aerial guideways, and

• Resilient tract support.

Receiver control measures may include:

• Acquisition of property rights for construction of sound barriers,

• Building insulation, and

• Alternative building ventilation.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-249

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Vibration

For vibration, a detailed vibration analysis will be prepared as part of the Tier 2 studies. This 

detailed analysis will also utilize detailed preliminary engineering design and operational data, and 

include an assessment of potential mitigation measures. Mitigation measures to be examined may 

include:

• Planning and design of special trackwork;

• Vehicle specifications; and

• Special track support systems (i.e., resilient fasteners, ballast mats, resiliently supported ties, floating 

slabs, and other marginal treatments), and trenches.

4.21.6. Future Analysis

Tier 2 noise and vibration impact assessments will apply the detailed analysis methodology 

described in the FRA and FTA guidance manuals. Tier 2 assessments would utilize detailed 

preliminary engineering design and operational data, and include identification of potential 

mitigation measures.

4.22. Contaminated and Hazardous Materials

Transportation projects that include the purchase of new right-of-way, excavation, and/or structure 

demolition or modification have the potential to encounter hazardous materials. The presence or release 

of hazardous materials on construction sites can expose workers, residents and ecosystems to

contaminants that may compromise their health. In addition, the identification of hazardous materials 

during construction can lead to project delays and can be costly.

4.22.1. Regulatory Context

The use, storage, transportation and disposal of contaminated and hazardous materials are 

regulated at the federal level by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). At 

the state level, many of the environmental regulations are enforced by the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 

The U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 gives the U.S. EPA the authority 

to regulate hazardous waste from the “cradle-to-grave.” 172 This includes the generation, 

transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a 

framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. In New York, the NYSDEC is 

authorized to implement the RCRA program in lieu of the U.S. EPA. NYSDEC issues the permits, 

conducts inspections, signs consent orders, and gathers and processes data. 

172/ United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed April 19, 

2011. <http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/rcra.html>.

Page 4-250 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The Comprehensive Environmental Resource Conservation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 

commonly known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and 

provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. The law authorized the 

U.S. EPA to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean 

up the sites.173

In 1984, Congress added Subtitle 1 to RCRA requiring the U.S. EPA to regulate underground storage 

tanks (USTs). The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled the U.S. EPA to address environmental 

problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous 

substances.174 

In 1988, the U.S. EPA issued federal UST regulations laying out a comprehensive program for the 

monitoring and upgrading of USTs in the nation.175,176

The storage of petroleum products in New York State is governed under three main laws.177,178 The 

laws apply both to USTs and Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs), or groupings of such tanks with a 

combined storage capacity of more than 1,100 gallons. The New York State Substances Hazardous 

or Acutely Hazardous to Public Health, Safety or the Environment Chemical law requires the 

NYSDEC to regulate all substances covered by CERCLA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act,179 and the Toxic Substances Control Act.180 NYSDEC may also regulate other 

chemicals known to be hazardous.181 The sale, storage and handling of hazardous substances are 

regulated by the New York State Chemical Bulk Storage regulations.182 

Major oil storage facilities (MOSF) are regulated by the New York State Navigation Law Oil Spill 

Prevention, Control and Compensation Act of 1977.183 This law and regulations (6 NYCRR Parts 

610 and 611)184 regulates all oil terminals and transport vessels operating in the waters of the 

State, which have a storage capacity of 400,000 gallons or more (or MOSFs). 

173/ Comprehensive Environmental Resource Conservation and Liability Act, 42 United States Code, Chapter 103, 1980. 174/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 United States Code, Section 6901, 1976. 175/ Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks (UST), 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 280, 1988.

176/ Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Programs, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 281, 1988. 177/ Water Pollution Control, New York Environmental Conservation Law, Article 17, Title 10, 2012. 178/ Petroleum Bulk Storage, 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Parts 612 to 614. 179/ Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 United States Code, Section 136, 1947. 180/ Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 United States Code, Section 2601, 1976. 181/ Substances Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous to Public Health, Safety or the Environment, New York Environmental Conservation 

Law, Article 37, Title 10, 2012.

182/ Chemical Bulk Storage, 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Parts 595 to 599. 183/ New York State Navigation Law Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensation Act, New York Environmental Conservation Law, 

Article 12, 1977.

184/ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “Regulation of Major Oil Storage Facilities.” Accessed April 19, 2011. 

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/2644.html>.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-251

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.22.2. Methodology

Areas of known releases were identified within a half-mile of the corridor centerline (program 

study area) using available federal and state databases. The following Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data layers were reviewed as part of this analysis. 

• Superfund CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System) is the tracking database authorized under the Superfund 

Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. Superfund is the common name for 

CERCLA, the federal law designated to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances. 

The database contains information on hazardous waste sites including an inventory of sites, 

planned and actual site activities, and financial information. 

• The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of national priorities among the known releases 

or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the 

United States and its territories. The Superfund cleanup process involves the steps taken to 

assess sites, place them on the National Priorities List (NPL), and establish and implement 

appropriate cleanup plans. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the U.S. EPA in determining 

which sites warrant further investigation under the Superfund cleanup program.185

• RCRA Info databases track both Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities and Large Quantity 

Generators. RCRA Subtitle C established regulations and procedures for the generation, 

transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, thus, tracking waste for its entire 

existence (cradle to grave). 

• Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) is a national database that tracks reported toxic 

chemical use (over 300 toxic chemicals listed), storage and/or permitted release to the 

environment (air, water or land). TRIS was created under authority of Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 

1990.186 

• The New York State Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS) and the NYS Petroleum Bulk Storage 

(PBS) programs are regulated by the NYSDEC under the Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage 

Program. 

• MOSF database tracks terminals or vessels with a capacity of 400,000 gallons or more. 

4.22.3. Existing Conditions

Over 6,400 hazardous materials sites were identified within a half-mile of the corridor centerline 

(90/110 Study Area) and approximately 5,500 sites were identified within the 125 Study Area, as 

shown in Exhibit 4-58. Of these, more than half (approximately 3,750) were identified in 

Manhattan. Appendix G.14 presents a county by county discussion of identified hazardous 

materials sites. 

185/ United States Environmental Protection Agency. “National Priorities List.” Accessed September 26, 2011. 

<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl>. 186/ United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Toxic Release Inventory Program.” Accessed April 19, 2011. 

<http://www.epa.gov/tri>.

Page 4-252 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-58—Summary of Contaminated and Hazardous Materials Sites within the Study Area

County

NPL Superfund RCRA TRIS CBS PBS MOSF Total

90/

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

90/ 

110 

mph

125 

mph

New York 0 0 0 0 64 64 6 6 11 11 3,667 3,667 0 0 3,748 3,748

Bronx 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 115 115 0 0 116 116

Westchester 0 0 1 1 16 16 15 15 12 12 3 3 5 5 52 52

Putnam 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 14 14

Dutchess 0 0 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 87 87 3 3 106 106

Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 11 11 0 0 13 13

Rensselaer 0 0 2 2 9 9 10 10 10 10 51 47 9 8 91 86

Albany 1 0 1 0 13 10 9 2 9 4 155 51 0 1 188 68

Schenectady 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 2 0 106 34 2 0 114 36

Schoharie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Montgomery 0 0 1 0 10 0 4 2 5 0 119 1 0 0 139 3

Herkimer 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 4 1 110 3 0 0 127 4

Oneida 1 0 3 2 11 3 12 2 8 2 244 20 2 0 281 29

Madison 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 3 12 23 0 0 18 29

Onondaga 0 0 2 2 17 17 23 22 17 17 178 180 1 1 238 239

Cayuga 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 0 11 1

Wayne 0 0 0 1 7 0 8 1 5 0 59 23 1 0 80 25

Monroe 0 0 6 6 41 38 43 42 17 16 265 262 1 1 373 365

Genesee 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 8 0 148 21 0 0 164 21

Erie 0 0 10 10 35 35 54 53 13 14 334 322 1 1 447 435

Niagara 2 2 5 5 8 8 12 12 7 7 56 56 1 1 91 91

Total 5 3 33 31 248 206 220 179 138 102 5,741 4940 26 21 6,411 5,482

Note 1:NPL – National Priority List, RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, TRIS – Toxic Release Inventory System, CBS – Chemical Bulk Storage, 

PBS – Petroleum Bulk Storage, MOSF – Major Oil Storage Facility

Note 2: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor alignment. 

The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 miles 

long. The study area width is defined as being within a half-mile of the corridor centerline.

Source: NYS GIS Clearinghouse, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

NYSDEC. Accessed November 7, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/geodata/DiscoveryServlet>.

U.S. EPA. Accessed November 7, 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html>.

4.22.4. Environmental Consequences

Impacts as a result of the presence of contaminated and hazardous materials can include a variety 

of concerns. The acquisition of property can result in NYSDOT incurring liability, since the property 

owner is responsible for any contamination discovered after property acquisition. The presence of 

contaminated soil or groundwater can result in serious delays as a result of costly site 

investigations and remedial actions. Excavation activities to substantial depths in areas with 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-253

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

contamination can result in high disposal costs from large volumes of soil. Deeper excavations 

increase the likelihood of encountering contaminated groundwater, which can also be costly to 

treat and dispose. Furthermore, the presence or release of contaminated materials can expose

workers, residents within the community, and the surrounding environment to contaminants that 

could impose negative health effects. 

In addition to contamination from mapped hazardous materials facilities outside of the existing 

right-of-way, contamination is known to occur along railroad corridors as a result of industrial uses 

along the railroad corridor that rely on freight movements for shipping and deliveries. Most 

railroad corridors also have residual contamination from a variety of sources with contaminants 

ranging from metals, hazardous materials and petroleum products, and asbestos. 

Improvement project specifics (i.e., excavation depths, construction plans, etc.) have not yet been 

provided; therefore, the degree of likelihood to encounter impacts from contamination is generally 

based on the discussion above.

Review of available records indicates that the Base Alternative and Alternative 90A would incur the 

least amount of impacts as a result of the presence of contaminated materials. These alternatives 

would largely involve station improvements and work within the right-of-way, with tracks being 

added in the location of the former track beds or existing access roads. A moderate amount of 

impacts would occur as a result of the presence of contamination within the existing railroad rightof-way and nearby mapped sites. Alternatives 90B and 110 would have a greater potential to 

encounter contaminated materials than the Base and 90A alternatives, especially where new third 

and fourth track construction would occur within highly developed urbanized areas and would 

require subsurface work. Alternative 125 would include all the improvements considered under 

Alternative 90A and would also include the extension of 236 miles of new track and alignment. The 

new rail alignment would extend through a variety of rural, suburban, and urban areas and would 

require numerous property acquisitions; increasing NYSDOT’s risk; however, in many suburban 

and rural areas these risks may be lower. 

This preliminary assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and is designed to identify areas with the 

likelihood to incur impacts as a result of contaminated and hazardous materials sites in the vicinity 

of the proposed improvements. Specific details and general mitigation plans will be included as the 

project development process is further advanced in the Tier 2 analysis.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

against and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative 

will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in 

track and station infrastructure. 

Because proposed work with this alternative is anticipated to be located entirely within the rightof-way, no land acquisitions are anticipated, minimizing the potential for liability since NYSDOT will 

not acquire additional property. In general, signal and grade crossing work will have a low 

potential for encountering contaminated materials. The track improvements will be completed 

within the existing right-of-way. However, any subsurface work activities (e.g. excavation, 

trenching etc.) may have the potential to encounter contaminated materials that could require 

Page 4-254 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

special handling and disposal requirements. Station improvements may entail a greater potential 

for subsurface excavations that could encounter contaminated soils and groundwater. 

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. It is 

anticipated that work could be contained within the right-of-way, and no land acquisitions are 

anticipated; therefore impacts would be similar to those described in 90A with the potential for 

encountering contaminated materials increasing with subsurface work.

In addition, Alternative 90A would include replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which 

extends over the Hudson River between the urbanized cities of Rensselaer and Albany (Rensselaer 

and Albany Counties, respectively). The replacement of the bridge would include extensive 

subsurface activities (i.e. installation of footings and piers) and therefore the potential to encounter 

contaminated soils and groundwater would be high. In addition, given the presence of the Hudson 

River polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) site, there would be a higher likelihood that PCB-impacted 

sediment and surface water will be encountered during bridge construction activities.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

In general, impacts would be similar to those described above under Alternative 90A except that 

the subsurface activities would increase the likelihood of encountering contaminated soils and 

ground water as a result of additional infrastructure improvements including grade crossing 

modifications, new grade separated flyovers, culvert extensions and new cut areas. 

There would be seven locations where new right-of-way would need to be acquired (MPs 168.3, 

210.8, 215.6, 237.7, 286.4, 341.1 and 377.6). The acquisition of property would include a potential 

liability for NYSDOT if the properties currently or historically use, store or dispose of hazardous 

materials or petroleum products. Property acquisition would also include the acquisition of two 

current structures, which would require asbestos, lead and hazardous material surveys prior to 

demolition activities.

The three grade separated flyovers would be located at MPs 279, 366, and 427. The flyover at MP 

279 would be located in a more rural area, and no mapped hazardous materials facilities are in the 

vicinity of the alignment. Flyovers at MPs 366 and 427 are located in more urban areas of 

Rochester and Buffalo, and there would be mapped PBS facilities located in the vicinity of the 

improvements. These structures would have a higher likelihood to encounter contaminated soil 

and groundwater as a result of caisson and abutment construction.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-255

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 90B would also include station improvements at the Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, 

Rome, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo-Depew stations. Station improvements may entail a greater 

potential for subsurface excavations that could encounter contaminated soils and groundwater. 

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. In general, impacts would be similar to 

those described above under Alternative 90B.

Similar to the Alternative 90B, the majority of work for Alternative 110 would be completed within 

the existing right-of-way. There would be 18 locations where new right-of-way would need to be 

acquired (MPs 168.3, 184.6, 186.3, 191.7, 198.1, 200.6, 207.5, 210.8, 215.1, 226.9, 228.0, 230.8, 

237.2, 286.4, 341.1, 361.4, 377.7 and 389.1). As with Alternative 90B, the acquisition of property 

would include a potential liability for NYSDOT if the properties currently or historically used, 

stored or disposed of hazardous materials or petroleum products. Property acquisition would also 

include the acquisition of two current structures, which would require asbestos, lead and 

hazardous material surveys prior to demolition activities. 

Two grade separated flyovers would be located at MPs 279 and 366. As with Alternative 90B, the

flyover at MP 279 would be located in a more rural area, and no mapped hazardous materials 

facilities are in the vicinity of the alignment. The flyover at MP 366 is located in the more urban 

area of Rochester, and there would be mapped PBS facilities located in the vicinity of the 

improvements. These structures would have a higher likelihood to encounter contaminated soil 

and groundwater as a result of caisson and abutment construction.

As with Alternative 90B, Alternative 110 would also include station improvements at the 

Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, Rome, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo-Depew stations. Station 

improvements may entail a greater potential for subsurface excavations that could encounter 

contaminated soils and groundwater. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch. 

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. The alignment would be located within the existing Empire Corridor right-of-way 

through the cities of Syracuse and Rochester. Required infrastructure would include roadbed, 

track, viaducts and bridges, cuts and embankments, access roads, railroad systems, maintenance 

facilities and other support facilities. 

Page 4-256 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 125 would generally parallel the New York State Thruway through the cities of Albany 

and Schenectady. After leaving the City of Schenectady, the alignment would generally cut across 

rural lands before reconnecting with the existing Empire Corridor through Syracuse. After leaving 

the City of Syracuse, the alignment would again pass through rural lands before reconnecting with 

the existing Empire Corridor through Rochester. Leaving the City of Rochester, the alignment 

would again cut across rural lands before reconnecting with the existing Empire Corridor just east 

of Buffalo. Mapped hazardous materials facilities would be located sporadically in the vicinity of 

the new alignment throughout the rural land, with more densely mapped hazardous materials 

facilities located in Albany and Schenectady. Construction of new track and alignment would have 

the potential to encounter contaminated soils and/or groundwater since subsurface work would be 

more likely for this new alignment than for additional track within the existing railroad right-ofway. Through the cities of Syracuse and Rochester, Alternative 125 would be within the existing 

Empire Corridor right-of-way; however, there would be numerous mapped hazardous materials 

facilities adjacent to the alignment in Syracuse, and there would be potential to encounter

contaminated materials with the construction of new track depending on requirements for 

subsurface activities.

Since Alternative 125 would involve 236 miles of construction of new right-of-way, there would be 

numerous property acquisitions for the alignment. The acquisition of property would include a 

potential liability for NYSDOT if the properties currently or historically use, store or dispose of 

hazardous materials or petroleum products. In addition, property acquisition would also include 

the acquisition of numerous structures, which would require asbestos, lead and hazardous material 

surveys prior to demolition activities.

4.22.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation strategies will focus on methods to avoid or minimize conflicts with contaminated 

materials, in addition to completing Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). Phase I 

and Phase II ESAs evaluate environmental issues and risks associated with a site, particularly prior 

to purchase. A Phase I ESA consists of a review of regulatory records and historic information (e.g., 

maps, local government records); completion of a site visit; and conducting interviews with owners, 

occupants, and local government officials. This information is compiled and reviewed to determine 

the presence of any on- or off-site sources of contamination that may impact the site, classified as 

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). The Phase II ESA includes field sampling laboratory 

testing to evaluate the extents and severity of the issues. 

Site-specific Health and Safety Plans and Materials Management Plans will be developed to address 

contaminated soil and groundwater. If buildings will be demolished, an Asbestos Abatement Plan 

and a Lead-Based Paint Assessment Plan will be developed to document methodologies for 

completing the surveys. 

4.22.6. Future Analysis

The Tier 2 analysis will document the presence and extent of contaminated sites in more detail. 

This will allow NYSDOT to understand potential conflicts and refine the design to minimize conflicts 

such as reducing the amount of soil or groundwater that would need to be disposed of. The first 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-257

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

step would be to investigate previous activities and current site uses, following the guidelines of an 

ASTM-compliant Phase I ESA. This would include the review of aerial photographs, historical 

(Sanborn) maps, database reports, site visits, and other historical sources. Based on the results of 

the Phase I ESA, further investigations (limited subsurface reports and Phase II ESAs) including the 

collection of surficial and subsurface soil samples and groundwater samples may be required to 

delineate the horizontal and vertical extents of contamination in problem areas.

The program will have the potential to encounter asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead 

based paint associated with several structures located on land that would need to be acquired for 

new right-of-way or bridges that would need to be enhanced or demolished. Pursuant to 29 CFR 

1926.1101 and 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M requirements, asbestos abatement will be performed by a 

New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) licensed handling company using NYSDOL certified 

supervisor(s) and handlers. Prior project notification will be required for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and NYSDOL. Independent compliance air monitoring will be required as 

specified in 12 NYCRR Part 56. In addition, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360 and 364, friable ACM 

waste will be transported by a permitted hauler and disposed in an approved asbestos waste 

facility. Non-friable ACM will be disposed of at an approved disposal site. Lead paint removal of 

any significant amount will require compliance with hazardous waste and air quality requirements 

(see Section 4.19, “Air Quality”). 

Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Parts 360, 364 requirements and Spill Technology and Remediation Series 

(STARS) memo #1: Petroleum Contaminated Soil Guidance Policy, soils and other materials 

contaminated with petroleum products (at non-hazardous waste levels) will be identified and 

disposed of as industrial solid waste at permitted facilities or as per NYSDEC agreed method. 

Storage prior to disposal will not exceed 60 days unless approved by NYSDEC. Quantities greater 

than 500 pounds will be transported by a licensed waste hauler. 

If a project will generate more than 100 kilograms per month (kg./mo.) of hazardous waste, the 

project will obtain a U.S. EPA identification number, properly label, store, and inspect containers of 

hazardous waste, dispose of waste within designated time frames (i.e., 90 days) and complete 

annual generator reports if it exceeds hazardous waste generation of 1,000 kg./mo., per 6 NYCRR 

Part 372 and 373-3.9 and 373-1.1(d)(1)iii or iv requirements. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Parts 370-374 

and 49 CFR 172-173, hazardous waste will be transported by licensed waste transporters. The 

project will also sign and distribute a manifest to track the hazardous waste disposal and confirm 

that the designated disposal facility is authorized and has capacity to accept the waste. 

Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 596, 612 and 613 requirements, the project will also register with 

NYSDEC any stationary petroleum tanks exceeding 1,100 gallons in total at a facility and any 

chemical. Registration will be valid until tanks are permanently closed (i.e., removed during 

construction) unless waived by NYSDEC. The project will notify NYSDEC Spills Unit upon discovery 

of any releases from tanks and/or 30 days in advance of permanent tank closure and pay 

appropriate storage fees to NYSDEC. 

Page 4-258 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

4.23. Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)

4.23.1. Regulatory Context

This section addresses Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) protections and the preliminary assessments of 

potential Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) resources performed as part of this Tier 1 Draft EIS. Federal 

protection of publicly owned parkland and historic sites is provided under Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act (for federally funded transportation projects), and parklands are 

also protected under Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (for 

LWCF-funded parks). 

Once an alternative is selected, FRA will determine the need for additional Section 4(f) and/

or Section 6(f) evaluation, as appropriate. for individual improvement projects. 

Section 4(f)

Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) of 1969, as amended, states that the Secretary of 

the U.S. DOT shall not approve any program or project that requires the “use” of any land from a 

public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site, unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative, and such project or program includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm. 

Under Section 4(f), there are three types of transportation uses that may occur:

• Permanent Use: Land is permanently incorporated into the transportation facility through

outright purchase of the land or through acquisition of sufficient property interests (such as

obtaining a permanent easement).

• Temporary Use: Temporary occupancy of land creates an adverse effect for the purposes of

Section 4(f), including right-of-entry, project construction, temporary easement, or other

temporary arrangement involving Section 4(f) property. Temporary occupancy will not

constitute a Section 4(f) use if all of the following conditions are met:

o Duration must be temporary (shorter than construction duration) and there should be no

change in ownership of the land;

o Scope of the work (nature and magnitude of the change to the Section 4(f) property) must

be minimal;

o There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor interference with

protected activities, features, or attributes of the property on a temporary or permanent

basis;

o The property must be fully restored and returned to pre-construction conditions;

o There must be documented agreement of the officials with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f)

resource of the above conditions.

• Constructive Use: In the absence of a permanent or temporary use, a constructive use occurs

when the proximity impacts on a Section 4(f) property are so severe that the activities, features,

or attributes of the Section 4(f) resource that qualify it for protection are substantially

impaired.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-259

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Section 4(f) also considers the “use” from indirect impacts (i.e., effects on context, setting, or 

access). 

Amendments to Section 4(f) under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established procedures for de minimis impact 

determinations, when the transportation use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or 

attributes that qualify the resource for Section 4(f) protection. These procedures include affording 

an opportunity for public review and comment and receiving written concurrence from the officials 

with jurisdiction over the property. 

Section 6(f)

Under Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act, the United States 

Department of the Interior (DOI) provides funding for state, county, and local efforts to advance 

public recreation. Once LWCF funds are utilized to acquire or develop, either partially or wholly a 

particular recreation project, conversion of that park facility for any non-recreational purpose is 

prohibited unless alternatives are assessed and steps are taken to identify, evaluate, and supply 

replacement parkland. In addition, the Secretary of Interior must grant prior approval for the 

conversion and replacement parkland. The replacement property must have equal fair market 

value as the converted property and must be at least as useful and of similar location as the 

converted property. 

If a Section 6(f) property has been identified near, adjacent to, or within a project area, the decision 

must be made as to whether or not there will be a conversion or a change in use of the property. A 

conversion occurs when the use of a Section 6(f) site is changed for longer than six consecutive 

months to something other than what was funded, regardless of whether the change is temporary 

or permanent. 

If there is a partial conversion or use of the Section 6(f) property, an evaluation of the remaining 

Section 6(f) property should be conducted to determine whether there has been a change to its 

usefulness as a viable public outdoor recreation area. If the conversion is approved by the National 

Park Service and it is determined that the remaining property is altered to the point in which the 

usefulness has diminished, further evaluation and coordination should take place to establish 

whether the remaining land should be replaced as well. 

A conversion could also occur when a project would occur on the same property where the Section 

6(f) resource is located, and would not directly affect the Section 6(f) resource, but would affect 

access to or other reasonable use of the Section 6(f) resource on the site for more than six months. 

4.23.2. Methodology

Parks and recreation areas for study areas within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for all 

alternatives were identified using existing mapping collected from federal and state agencies, 

including the New York State GIS Clearinghouse, NYSOPRHP, and NYSDEC, as well as review of 

aerial photography and Google street mapping, as presented in Section 4.16. The GIS mapping 

obtained of federal and state parks and recreation areas included National Wildlife Refuges, and 

National and State Historic Sites, and these sites were included as publicly accessible recreation 

Page 4-260 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

destinations. Information from the National Park Service (NPS) staff was obtained on locations of 

NPS properties, including National Natural Landmarks,187 National Memorials, and National 

Monuments.188 The NPS website was consulted to identify and locate county-by-county Land and 

Water Conservation Fund park grants, and NYSGIS mapping of LWCF-funded municipal parks was 

obtained. Information obtained from NYSOPRHP on LWCF-funded state parks was also obtained. 

Publicly owned recreation areas were defined to include publicly owned golf courses (but not 

“public” golf courses that are open to the public, but privately owned). This section also addresses 

tribally owned recreational facilities.

For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for potential direct effects on 

historic architectural sites and archaeological sites has been delineated to extend within 100 feet 

from the centerline of the existing railroad tracks and within 100 feet from each alternative to 

encompass all locations where project construction activities could occur, as described in more 

detail in Section 4.15. For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, the APE for indirect effects on historic 

architectural sites has been delineated to extend 600 feet in both directions from the centerline of 

the existing railroad tracks and from each alternative. The 600-foot APE was developed in 

consultation with SHPO and federally recognized tribes to encompass potential indirect effects that 

could be reasonably foreseen at the Tier 1 level resulting from construction activities associated 

with the proposed program, as described above. It should be noted that Alternative 125 is the only 

alternative that would incorporate overhead catenary systems, which could be visible from longer 

distances in some areas. If Alternative 125 is advanced for further study at the Tier 2 level, the 

APE would be reassessed and expanded if necessary to adequately consider the potential for indirect 

effects..

189

 An inventory of all architectural resources within the indirect APE has been 

compiled and is presented in Appendix G. 

When the Section 106 identification and evaluation process is being conducted in a phased manner, 

as described in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), the final identification and evaluation of historic properties 

may be deferred to future stages of the program if the protocol for the process is established in a 

Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement. In accordance with this guidance, this 

Tier 1 EIS focuses on identifying the “likely presence” of historic properties in the APE for each 

alternative by identifying previously designated architectural resources and previously identified 

archaeological sites. Based on the files of the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

and the New York State Museum (NYSM), program sponsors compiled an inventory of all 

architectural resources, including buildings, sites, objects, and structures, and previously-identified 

archaeological sites in the direct and indirect APEs for the 90/110 Alternative and the 125 

Alternative (see Chapter 3 “Alternatives” for a detailed description of each alternative). In addition 

to SHPO and NYSM sites, the Oneida Nation, a federally recognized tribe, provided information on 

archaeological sites known to the Oneida Nation. The sites identified by the Oneida Nation, located 

in Oneida and Madison Counties, have been added to the project mapping and inventories of known 

187/ Deb DeQuinzio, National Natural Landmarks Program, National Park Service Northeast Region, “Moss Island,” E-mail/personal 

communication to Addie Kim, HNTB Corporation, March 22, 2011.

188/ Duncan Hay, National Park Service, Northeast Region, “NYSDOT & FRA Compliance (NEPA), E-mail/personal communication to 

Addie Kim, HNTB Corporation, March 25, 2001.

189/ Although FTA noise standards set a standard screening distance of 750' (unobstructed) and (375' obstructed) for noise analyses, 

preliminary noise analyses completed as part of this Tier 1 DEIS indicate that the area in which there is the potential for the proposed 

program alternatives (with the exception of Alternative 125) to result in noise impacts is substantially smaller than the areas delineated 

as the APEs for direct and indirect effects. In the case of Alternative 125, the potential for noise impacts is expected to vary by location. If 

Alternative 125 is advanced for analysis at the Tier 2 level, the adequacy of the indirect APE to account for potential effects due to noise 

and other factors would be reassessed and the APE would be expanded where necessary. Procedures for delineating APEs for project 

components advanced to the Tier 2 level are described in detail in the Draft Programmatic Agreement.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-261

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

archaeological sites.

Consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), once the previously-identified archaeological sites and 

architectural resources within the APEs for each alternative were identified, the potential effects of 

the program on those sites and resources were assessed. As described above, effects on 

architectural resources can be either direct or indirect; and effects on archaeological sites are direct 

only. Illustrative program elements that could result in potential indirect effects include changes to 

the context or setting of a historic property due to the construction of a permanent feature, such as 

new or reconfigured railroad infrastructure, or demolition. In addition, Section 106 requires 

consideration of reasonably foreseeable effects that may occur later in time, be further removed in 

distance, or be cumulative. 

Potential architectural resources (architectural resources that appear to meet the State/National 

Register eligibility criteria, but which have not been previously evaluated) within the APEs have not 

been identified as part of this Tier 1 document. As described in the Draft Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) (refer to Appendix H), identification of potential architectural resources in the APEs would be 

undertaken as part of the Tier 2 analysis for this program.

No detailed archaeological documentary studies or archaeological field investigations (Phase I 

archaeological studies) have been prepared as part of the Tier 1 analysis to determine the presence 

of archaeological sites in the direct APE. As described above, previously-identified archaeological 

sites have been mapped and inventoried to serve as a preliminary indicator of potential 

archaeological sensitivity. As described in the Draft PA, in order to identify archaeological 

resources that could be affected by the program, archaeological documentary studies and field 

investigations (as appropriate) will be carried out as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

The purpose of developing a conceptual “alignment” for Alternative 125 in the Tier 1 EIS is to 

provide a basis for comparison of corridor-level performance, cost, and impact potential of a new 

corridor alternative versus existing corridor alternatives (i.e. Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110). The 

intended purpose of this Tier 1 EIS is to make broad-corridor level decisions with regard to 

parameters such as operating speed/travel times, service frequency, and infrastructure 

requirements. The purpose of the Tier 1 EIS does not include studying alternative alignments to 

achieve the 125 miles per hour speed, nor does it include selecting a specific alignment. All 

alternatives except Alternative 125 would follow the existing Empire Corridor alignment along both 

the Empire Corridor South and Empire Corridor West. To achieve the higher speed of Alternative 

125, much of this alternative along the Empire Corridor West would be on a new corridor outside of 

the existing Empire Corridor alignment. Because portions of Alternative 125 would not be located 

within the existing rail corridor, one representative “alignment” was developed for Alternative 125 

at a conceptual level. It is intended to be one of several possible alignments that could be 

developed and studied in the future if Alternative 125 is the selected alternative at the conclusion of 

this Tier 1 EIS. 

4.23.3. Existing Conditions

Parks and Recreational Areas

Overview

The existing parks and recreation areas in the study area are concentrated in two main areas: the 

Hudson River Valley and the New York State Barge Canal system within the Mohawk River Valley.

Page 4-262 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• The program corridor extends along the east bank of the Hudson River between New York City 

and Albany a distance of 142 miles. The Hudson River Valley in the program area has a 

concentration of national, state, county, and municipal parks and recreation areas due to its 

location and scenic views, as well as the concentration of population centers that developed 

along the river. The area also has a rich cultural and economic heritage and hosts a number of 

historic districts and sites. The Hudson Valley also was the location of the estates of many 

wealthy New York industrialists, such as John D. Rockefeller and Frederick William Vanderbilt, 

and of nationally important individuals such as Franklin Roosevelt, a descendant of one of the 

early Dutch families in the region. The national and state historic sites are important 

recreational tourism destinations.

• The New York State Canal System is a navigable 524-mile inland waterway that crosses 

upstate New York. The New York State Barge Canals, owned by the New York State Canal 

Corporation (a subsidiary of the New York State Thruway Authority) provide recreational 

opportunities for water-based navigation and trail users. The New York State Canalway Trail 

System is comprised of a network of more than 260 miles of existing multi-use, recreational 

trails across upstate New York. Major segments are adjacent to the waterways of the New York 

State Canal System or follow remnants of the historic original canals of the early 1800s that 

preceded today's working Canal System. The Canalway Trail System is comprised of four major 

segments: the 100-mile Erie Canal Heritage Trail in Western New York; the 36-mile Old Erie 

Canal State Park Trail in Central New York; the 60-mile Mohawk-Hudson Bikeway in the 

eastern Capital Region. Portions of this canal system are nationally or state-designated heritage 

areas, parks, and trails.

The national, state, county, and municipal parks and recreation areas and federally and statedesignated heritage and historic sites that are also important tourism destinations are described in 

the following sections.

National Parks and Recreation Areas

There are several types of federally designated parks or recreation areas in the study area, 

including a National Memorial, a National Natural Landmark, a National Wildlife Refuge, and 

National Historic Sites, as described in more detail in Section 4.16.3. National Historic Landmarks 

and National Register Historic Districts and sites in the program area are addressed under Section 

4.15.3. Exhibit 4-59 summarizes the publicly owned acreage within the National Memorial, the

National Natural Landmark, the National Wildlife Refuge, the National Historic Sites, and the federal 

preserves within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas. 

State Parks and Recreation Areas

New York State has multiple programs for land conservation and preservation on property that is 

managed and/or owned by the state. The state has designated state parks, state historic parks, and 

state historic sites that are administered by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and 

Historic Preservation. New York state forests (including multiple use areas, unique areas, and state 

nature and historic preserves) and state-owned Wildlife Management Areas are administered by 

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-263

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• The State Parks System managed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and 

Historic Preservation includes state parks, state historic parks and state historic sites that are 

open to the public as tourist attractions. State parks include the Old Erie Canal State Park in 

Onondaga County (Mileposts 278.3 to 279), Madison County (Mileposts 266.5 to 272), and 

Oneida County. This is a 36-mile stretch of the 363-mile Old Erie Canal, which has been 

designated a National Recreational Trail by the National Parks Service. This and other state 

parks, state historic parks, and historic sites within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for both 

the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas are listed in Exhibit 4-60, along with Section 4(f)/Section 

6(f) protection status. 

• State Forests in New York State encompass many legally defined classifications of lands 

outside the Forest Preserve of Adirondack and Catskill Parks that include land parcels acquired 

Exhibit 4-59—National Memorials, National Natural Landmarks, National Wildlife Refuges, and 

National Historic Sites and Preserves within Study Area 

Name County

Acreage within 2,000-foot-wide 

study area

Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

6(f) 90/110

Study Area

125

Study Area

General Grant National 

Memorial New York 0.8 0.8 X X

Federal Land within Hudson 

Highlands State Park Putnam 0.4 0.4 X X

Vanderbilt Mansion 

National Historic Site Dutchess 143 143 X X

Franklin D Roosevelt Home 

National Historic Site Dutchess 82 82 X X

Federal Land within 

Schodack Island State Park Greene 24 24 X X

Moss Island National 

Natural Landmark Herkimer 15 X X

Montezuma National 

Wildlife Refuge Wayne 1 (556*) X X

Hart’s Woods Monroe ** X X

Bergen Swamp Genesee *** X X

*/ One acre of the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge is in the study area, 556 acres of the Approved Acquisition Area for the refuge is in 

the study area.

**/ Total acreage for Hart’s Woods is 10 acres, a portion of which is in the study area.

***/ Total acreage for Bergen Swamp is 2,000 acres, a portion of which is in the study area.

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York State GIS Clearinghouse

Page 4-264 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 4-60—NYSOPRHP State Parks, State Park Preserves, State Historic Sites

Facility Name Facility Type County/City

Acreage in 

Study Area

Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

90/110 125 6(f)

Hudson River Park State Park Manhattan 0.1 0.1 X

Riverbank State Park State Park New York 26 26 X X

Philipse Manor Hall State Historic Site Westchester 0.3 0.3 X

Old Croton Aqueduct State Historic Park Westchester 18 18 X X

Rockefeller State Park Preserve State Park Westchester 153 153 X

Hudson Highlands State Park State Park Preserve Westchester 204 204 X

Hudson Highlands State Park State Park Preserve Putnam 322 322 X

Hudson Highlands State Park State Park Preserve Dutchess 398 398 X

underwater State Park State Park Putnam 19 19 X

Walkway over the Hudson State 

Park

State Park Dutchess 0.3 0.3 X

Quiet Cove Riverfront Park Other Dutchess 32 32 X

Margaret Lewis Norrie State Park State Park Dutchess 234 234 X X

Staatsburgh State Historic Site State Historic Site Dutchess 1 1 X X

Ogden Mills and Ruth Livingston 

Mills Memorial State Park

State Park Dutchess 224 224 X X

Clermont State Historic Site State Historic Site Dutchess 0.1 0.1 X

Clermont State Historic Site State Historic Site Columbia 152 152 X

Olana State Historic Site State Historic Site Columbia 74 74 X

Conservation Easement (adjoining 

Olana site)

State Historic Site Columbia 103 103 X

Building envelope (adjoining 

Olana site)

Conservation 

easement

Columbia 7 7 X

Hudson River Islands State Park State Park Columbia 11 11 X

Schodack Island State 

Park(undeveloped)

State Park Columbia 14 14 X X

Schodack Island State 

Park(undeveloped)

State Park Greene 9 9 X X

Schodack Island State 

Park(undeveloped)

State Park Rensselaer 185 185 X X

Lock 9 State Canal Park Canal Park Schenectady 16 0 X X

Guy Park State Historic Site Montgomery 2 0 X

Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site Montgomery 18 0 X X

Herkimer Home State Historic Site Herkimer 33 0 X

Oriskany Battlefield State Historic Site Oneida 5 0 X X

Old Erie Canal State Historic Park State Historic Park Madison 185 45 X X

Old Erie Canal State Historic Park State Historic Park Onondaga 94 12 X X

State Fairgrounds State Recreation Area Onondaga 85 85 X

State Park at the Fair Other Onondaga 1 0.7 X

Whirlpool State Park State Park Niagara 6 6 X X

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment 

and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation and NYS GIS Clearinghouse

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-265

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

under several Bond Acts. State Forests are under the administration of the New York 

Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests and include four land 

classifications, but only two types: Unique Areas and state nature and historic preserves 

are present within the study area. Unique Areas are defined as parcels of land owned by the 

state that were acquired due to its special natural beauty, wilderness character, or for its 

geological, ecological or historical significance for the state nature and historical preserve, and 

may include lands within a forest preserve county outside the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. 

The NYSDEC state forests preserves and unique areas within 1,000 feet of the corridor 

centerline for both the 90/110 and the 125 Study Areas are shown in Exhibit 4-61, one of which 

has received Section 6(f) funding.

Exhibit 4-61—New York State DEC Lands

Facility Name County/City

Acreage within 2,000-

ft.-wide

Study Area Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential

Section

6(f) 90/110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

Tivoli Bay Wildlife Management Area Dutchess 412 412 X X

Middle Ground Flats Unique Area Greene 9.0 9.1 X

Middle Ground Flats Unique Area Columbia 1.3 1.3 X

Hudson River at Germantown Columbia * * X

Stockport Flats Tidal Wetland Columbia 31 31 X

Rogers Island Wildlife Management Area Columbia 90 90 X

Hudson State Boat Launch Columbia 0.2 0.2 X

Stockport Flats Wildlife Management 

Area Columbia 230 230 X

Nutton Hook Tidal Wetland Columbia 292 292 X

Albany Pine Bush State Unique Area Albany 138 124 X X

Nelliston Boat Launch Site Montgomery * X

Plantation Island Wildlife Management 

Area (Lock 18 WMA) Herkimer 50 X

Oriskany Flats Wildlife Management 

Area Oneida 265 X

Rome State Wildlife Management Area Oneida 269 X

Carpenter’s Creek Fisherman’s Access Onondaga 0.4 X

Northern Montezuma Wildlife 

Management Area Cayuga 75 X

Northern Montezuma Wildlife 

Management Area Wayne 184 X

Tillman Road Wildlife Management Area Erie 20 X

*Site is a boat launch , acreage is not available

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long 

Empire Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing 

Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the 

corridor centerline.

Source: New York State GIS Clearinghouse, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Page 4-266 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are lands owned by New York State under the control 

and management of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Division 

of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. These lands have been acquired primarily for the 

production and use of wildlife. However, while fishing, hunting and trapping are the most 

widely practiced activities on many WMAs, they are not limited to these activities. Most WMAs 

also provide good opportunities for hiking, cross-country skiing, birdwatching, or quiet 

enjoyment of nature. The WMAs within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline for both the 

90/110 and the 125 Study Areas are shown in Exhibit 4-61, one of which has received Section 

6(f) funding.

County/Municipal Parks and Recreation Areas

There are roughly 100 county, municipal and non-profit parks identified within the study area. 

Twelve county-owned parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline of the 

90/110 Study Area, of which two have received federal Land and Water Conservation Funding, as 

shown in Exhibit 4-62. Four of the county parks are located in Westchester County. Within the 125 

Study Area, only eight county owned parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor 

centerline, one of which is not within the 90/110 Study Area.

Exhibit 4-62—County Parks within 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline

Park County

Study Area Acreage Potential 

Section 

4(f)

Potential 

Section 

6(f)

90/110 

Study Area

125 Study 

Area

Lenoir Preserve (County Park) Westchester 9 9 X

Kingsland Point County Park Westchester 16 16 X

Croton Point County Park Westchester 11 11 X

Oscawana County Park (undeveloped) Westchester 80 80 X

Bowdoin County Park Dutchess 105 105 X X

Papscanee Island County Nature 

Preserve Rensselaer 169 169 X

Bergen Park Montgomery 2.4* X

Onondaga Lake County Park Onondaga 24 24 X X

Black Brook County Park Wayne 17 X

Blue Cut County Nature Center Wayne 20 X

Swift Landing County Park Wayne 23 X

Churchville County Park Monroe 72 X X

DeWitt County Recreational Facility Genesee 116 X

*/ Bergen Park is approximately 2.4 acres and the entire park is within the 90/110 Study Area.

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: New York State GIS Clearinghouse, LWCF website: <http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm>

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-267

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Ninety-four municipal parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline of the 

90/110 Study Area, and of these, 27 have received Land and Water Conservation Funds. Within the 

125 Study Area, eighty-four parks were identified within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline, of 

which twenty-two have received Land and Water Conservation Funds (see Exhibit 4-63). More 

than half of these municipal parks are located in the more densely populated counties closer to New 

York City. Fifty parks (including one non-profit park) are located in New York, Bronx, Westchester, 

and Dutchess Counties. 

Exhibit 4-63—Number of Municipal and Non-Profit Parks with 1,000 feet of the Corridor Centerline 

County

Municipal Parks within 

1,000 feet

Potential Section 6(f) 

Parks

Potential Section 4(f) 

Parks

Nonprofit 90/110 

Study Area

125 Study 

Area

90/110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

90/110 

Study 

Area

125 Study 

Area

New York 12 12 5 5 12 12

Bronx 4 4 1 1 4 4

Westchester 20 20 6 6 20 20 1

Putnam 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dutchess 12 12 3 3 12 12

Columbia 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

Rensselaer 0 0 0 0 0 0

Albany 7 8 2 1 7 8

Schenectady 6 0 1 0 6 0

Schoharie 0 0 0 0 0 0

Montgomery 3 0 1 0 3 0

Herkimer 2 1 1 0 2 1

Oneida 0 1 0 0 0 2 1

Madison 1 0 1 0 1 0

Onondaga 2 2 1 1 2 2

Cayuga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wayne 1 0 0 0 1 0

Monroe 7 9 2 2 7 9

Genesee 3 0 0 0 3 0

Erie 6 7 2 2 6 7

Niagara 7 7 1 1 7 7

TOTAL 94 84 27 22 94 84 3

Note: The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire 

Corridor alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor 

and new alignment and is 450 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 1,000 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: New York State GIS Clearinghouse, New York State Office of Park, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and National Park 

Service LWCF website: < http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm>

Page 4-268 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Historic and Cultural Resources

Archaeology

As described above, information concerning the location and character of previously-identified 

archaeological sites in the direct APEs was collected through a review of the site files of SHPO and 

NYSM. Additional information regarding archaeological sites in Oneida and Madison Counties was 

provided by the Oneida Nation. Exhibit G-10 of Appendix G identifies the number and type of sites 

in each county in the direct APEs for the 90/110 Alternative and the 125 Alternative. 

90/110 Alternative APE 

A total of 166 previously-identified archaeological sites have been identified within the direct APE 

for the 90/110 Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara 

Branch. Of these sites, 47 are SHPO archaeological sites, 117 are NYSM sites (13 point sites and 104 

polygon sites190), and two are sites identified by the Oneida Nation (Sites 1 and 2). There are a total 

of 36 burial/habitation sites.

125 Alternative APE

A total of 126 previously-identified archaeological sites have been identified within the direct APE 

for the 125 Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. 

Of these, 27 are SHPO archaeological sites, 96 are NYSM sites (8 point sites and 88 polygon sites), 

and three are sites identified by the Oneida Nation (Sites 3 through 5). There are a total of 27 

burial/habitation sites.

Historic Architectural Resources

Previously-identified historic architectural resources located within the direct APE for the 90/110 

Alternative and the 125 Alternative are summarized in Exhibit 4-64 and Appendix G, respectively. 

The NHLs, State and National Register (S/NR)-listed and eligible historic districts are noted in the 

text below. Detailed tables listing the S/NR-listed and eligible individual resources are provided in 

Exhibits G-12 and G-13 in Appendix G. The approximate locations of these resources are illustrated 

on Exhibit G-14. The previously identified architectural resources within the indirect APEs are 

summarized in Appendix G.

Direct APE: 90/110 Alternative

A total of 79 previously-identified historic architectural resources are located in the direct APE for 

the 90/110 Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara 

Branch. These resources are summarized by county in Exhibit 4-64. Of the 79 architectural 

resources, two resources are NHLs: Fort Klock in St. Johnsville, Montgomery Country and the 

Hudson River Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties. Fort Klock was designated a 

National Historic Landmark District by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in 1973. Fort Klock, a 

190/ As delineated by NYSM, NYSM polygon sites represent the approximate extent of archaeological sites believed to occupy large areas,

and NYSM point sites represent identified locations of archaeological sites whose boundaries may not have been clearly defined.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-269

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

fortified stone homestead built in 1750, is part of a 30-acre complex that includes the historic 

homestead, a renovated Colonial Dutch Barn, blacksmith shop, and 19th century schoolhouse. The 

Hudson River National Historic Landmark District was designated by the U.S. Secretary of the 

Interior in 1990. The 32-square-mile district stretches from Germantown in Columbia County to 

Hyde Park in Dutchess County. It includes over 40 riverfront estates, two villages, four hamlets, and 

significant designed landscapes and farmlands.

There are 53 S/NR-listed resources within the direct APE. Of these, 41 are individually listed while 

12 are historic districts. The 53 individually listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12 in 

Appendix G. 

It should be noted that approximately 350 bridges meeting the 50 year age criterion for S/NR 

eligibility are located within the existing railroad alignment and thus within the direct APE. Any 

bridges 50 years old or older would also be evaluated for potential S/NR eligibility as part of the 

Exhibit 4-64—Historic Architectural Resources within the Direct APE for each Alternative

County

NHL

S/NR-Listed 

Resources -

individual

S/NR-Listed 

Resources -

districts

S/NR-Listed 

Resources

Total

S/NREligible 

Resourcesindividual

S/NREligible 

Resources -

districts

S/NREligible 

Resources

Total

Total 

Resources

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

New York 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 7 7

Bronx 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Westchester 11 11 11 11 3 3 1 1 4 4 15 15

Putnam 3 3 2 2 5 5 0 0 5 5

Dutchess 12 12 2 2 14 14 1 2 1 1 15 16

Columbia 2 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 4 4

Greene 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rensselaer 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 3

Albany 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 0

Schenectady 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Montgomery 1 4 1 5 0 5 5 0 10 0

Herkimer 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0

Oneida 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0

Madison 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

Onondaga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cayuga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wayne 0 0 0 0 0 0

Monroe 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2

Genesee 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Erie 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3

Niagara 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Multiple 

Counties 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

TOTALS 2 1 41 39 12 8 53 47 20 10 4 3 24 13 79 61

Notes: Counties are listed from south to north, then east to west.

The 90/110 APE is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor alignment. 

The 125 APE is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment and is 450 

miles long. 

Page 4-270 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Tier 2 analysis. In order to evaluate the significance of these bridges, an architectural historian 

would conduct a field visit and would perform documentary research. The NYSDOT’s Contextual 

Study of New York State’s pre-1961 Bridges (November 1999) and Evaluation of National Register 

Eligibility (January 2002) would be consulted among other documentary sources. Bridges not 

previously evaluated by the NYSDOT Contextual Study would be evaluated as part of the Tier 2 

analysis.

Direct APE: 125 Alternative

A total of 61 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the direct APE for the 125 

Alternative that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. These 

resources are summarized by county in Exhibit 4-64. Of the 61, one is an NHL: the Hudson River 

Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties (described above).

There are 47 S/NR-listed resources within the direct APE. Of these, 39 are individually-listed and 

eight are historic districts. The 39 individually-listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12 in 

Appendix G. 

4.23.4. Environmental Consequences

The sections below describe impacts to parks and recreational resources and historic and 

archaeological resources that may potentially be subject to protection under Section 4(f), as well as 

parklands subject to protection under Section 6(f). Review of aerial mapping indicates that the 

Base Alternative and Alternatives 90A and 90B would have minimal impacts to parklands and little 

or no impacts to parklands outside of the right-of-way. These alternatives would largely involve 

work within the right-of-way, with tracks being added in the location of the former track beds or 

existing access roads. The proposed work will include the addition of track, as well as maintenance 

service roads in selected areas. This preliminary assessment is based on Tier 1 concepts and 

mapping and will be further refined in Tier 2 as the project development process is further 

advanced, and efforts to avoid parkland encroachments will be made as design is advanced.

As described above under “Existing Conditions,” previously-identified archaeological sites and 

historic architectural resources within the direct and indirect APEs have been inventoried and 

mapped. Because improvement project design has not progressed to a point sufficient to enable 

site-specific analyses of potential adverse effects, specific potential effects to architectural and 

archaeological resources will not be provided as part of this Tier 1 Assessment. An analysis of the 

program alternatives’ potential to result in direct and indirect effects to specific architectural and 

archaeological resources would be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis, as described above in 

the “Methodology” section and summarized below under “Future Analysis.” As previously noted, 

potential adverse effects on architectural resources include direct physical effects that alter the 

characteristics of the historic property in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features. Program activities that would result in direct effects would 

include the demolition of a train station either listed or determined to be eligible for listing on the 

NR. Potential direct effects would also result from altering a train station in such a way as to 

remove the character-defining features that qualify it for listing on the NR. Similarly, direct effects 

on archaeological resources could result from construction activity to install new track, platforms, 

or grade crossings. Potential indirect effects on architectural resources include installation of new 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-271

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

signal systems or overheard bridges, which could constitute a visual intrusion that would diminish 

the property’s integrity, thereby adversely affecting its historic significance and hence its eligibility 

for listing on the NR. To the extent that the scope and activities of the various alternatives and their 

potential impacts can be identified at the present time, this information is provided below. Note 

that potential impacts were identified only for areas within the APE for each alternative where 

work is proposed. A comparison of the number of resources that could be affected by the Base 

Alternative, Alternative 90A, Alternative 90B, Alternative 110, and Alternative 125 is provided in 

Exhibit 4-65 and summarized below.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the alternatives are measured 

against and incorporates improvements that have already been programmed. The Base Alternative 

will maintain weekday service frequencies and will provide a program of eight improvements in 

track and station infrastructure. 

Parks and Recreational Areas

Because proposed work with this alternative is anticipated to be located entirely within the rightof-way, no land acquisitions are anticipated, no impacts to parklands are anticipated.

Exhibit 4-65—Comparison of Potential Impacts to Archaeological Sites and Architectural 

Resources, by Alternative

RESOURCE 

TYPE

NUMBER OF RESOURCES

Base Alternative 90A 90B 110 125

D I TOTAL D I TOTAL D I TOTAL D I TOTAL D I TOTAL

Archaeological 

Sites N/A N/A 3 30 N/A 30 87 N/A 109 83 N/A 105 35 N/A 57

NHLs N/A N/A 0 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 2 1 N/A 2 1 N/A 2

S/NR-listed 

Historic 

Districts

N/A 6 7 5 4 9 4 7 20 4 7 20 0 0 9

S/NR-listed 

Individual 

Resources

N/A 7 7 11 29 40 4 29 71 4 26 68 3 3 44

S/NR-eligible 

Historic 

Districts

N/A 3 4 N/A 3 3 2 11 13 2 10 12 0 0 0

S/NR-eligible 

Individual 

Resources

N/A 10 10 1 16 17 8 70 87 8 68 85 0 2 11

TOTAL 0 26 26 48 52 100 106 117 302* 103 214 292* 39 5 123*

Note: Resources that fall within the direct APE (D) are also located within the boundaries of the (I) indirect APE, as indicated in the Total column.

 *The following resources identified in Alternative 90A for the Empire Corridor South are included in the total resource count for 

 Alternatives 90B, 110, and 125: 22 archaeological sites; 1 NHL; 9 S/NR-listed Historic Districts; 35 S/NR-listed Individual resources; and 9 

 S/NR-eligible Individual resources.

Page 4-272 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Historic and Cultural Resources

Categorical Exclusions for eight projects in the Base Alternative are complete and have identified no 

adverse direct, physical or contextual impacts to archaeological sites or architectural resources in 

the direct APE. The CEs were reviewed to determine the potential for cultural resource effects, and, 

in addition, the historic assessment performed for this Tier 1 Draft EIS included research on 

documented cultural resources within the program’s APE. However, 26 architectural resources 

located in the indirect APE have been identified for this analysis, and potential impacts to these 

resources will be assessed as part of the Tier 2 analysis. As described above, the identification of 

potential architectural resources in the APEs will be undertaken as part of the Tier 2 analysis for 

this program, and impacts will be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Direct APE: Historic Architectural Resources

In a letter dated August 14, 2007, SHPO determined that the proposed reconstruction of the 

Schenectady Station will not result in adverse impacts on archaeological and architectural 

resources. Additionally, in a letter dated April 27, 2007, SHPO determined that the new Niagara 

Falls Station will not have adverse archaeological impacts. In a letter dated May 17, 2013, SHPO 

determined that the Rochester Station Redevelopment will not result in adverse impacts on 

archaeological and architectural resources. 

Indirect APE: Historic Architectural Resources

A total of 26 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the indirect APE for the 

Base Alternative. These include: 

• Monroe County – S/NR-listed Historic District: East Avenue Historic District (MP 368-370); St. 

Paul-North Water Streets Historic District (MP 371); State Street Historic District (MP 371); 

Bridge Square Historic District (MP 372); and Madison Square-West Main Street Historic 

District (MP 372); S/NR-listed Individual: German United Evangelical Church Complex (MP 

371); Leopold Street Shule (MP 370.5); Brick Presbyterian Church Complex (MP 371); Federal 

Building (MP 371); Andrews Street Bridge (MP 371); Washington Street Rowhouses (MP 372); 

S/NR-eligible Historic District: Public Market Historic District (MP 370); Prince Alexander 

Historic District (MP 370); Birch Crescent Historic District (MP 379); S/NR-eligible Individual: 

1290, 1255-1257, 1239, 1320 University Avenue (MP 368.5); J. Hunderford Smith building (MP 

369.5); Otis Lumber Co. (MP 369.5); Rochester Public Market (MP 370); Schwalb Coal & Oil Co. 

(MP 370.5); and Taylor Instrument Co. (MP 373) (23 total)

• Schenectady County – S/NR-listed Historic District: Stockade Historic District (MP 160) (1 

total)

• Niagara County – S/NR-listed Individual: Custom House (MP QDN28); S/NR-eligible Individual: 

947 Ontario Avenue (MP QDN28) (2 total)

An analysis of the potential for these Base Alternative projects to result in adverse impacts to the 

identified architectural resources will be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis as described in 

the “Methodology” section and summarized below in “Future Analysis.”

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-273

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Alternative 90A

With Alternative 90A, Empire Service would provide increased frequency of service as well as 

improved travel times, with a program of 20 improvements in track, station, signalization, in 

addition to improvements proposed under the Base Alternative previously described. 

Parks and Recreational Areas

It is anticipated that work could be contained within the right-of-way, and no impacts on parklands 

are anticipated. 

In Niagara County, Alternative 90A passes near two municipal parks, Gratwick Riverside Park from 

MPs QDN16 to QDN17, and Marios Park at MP QDN19; however, no impacts to these parks are 

anticipated since all work is within the existing rail right-of-way at these locations.

Historic and Cultural Resources

As with the Base Alternative, work proposed for the Alternative 90A is expected to occur within the 

existing right-of way. Categorical Exclusions for three of the projects in the 90A Alternative have 

been prepared and have identified no adverse impacts to architectural resources or archaeological 

resources in the direct APE for those specific projects. Exhibit 4-65 provides a summary of the total 

number of previously-identified archaeological sites and architectural resources located in the 

APEs for the Alternative 90A. 

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites

There are 30 previously-identified archaeological sites located in the direct APE for Alternative 90A 

that could experience direct, physical impacts due to construction-related activities, including 11 

burial/habitation sites. These include:

• New York County (Manhattan) – N (H, M)191 site; N (R) site (2 total)

• Bronx County – N (M) site (1 total)

• Westchester County – N (S) site; two N (U) sites; N (M) site; N (C) site; and three N (H, B) sites 

(8 total)

• Putnam County – N (S) site; N (B) site (2 total)

• Dutchess County – two N (H) sites; N (C, B) site; two N (S) sites; N (Q) site (MP 65); two N (U) 

sites; and N (C, B) site (9 total)

• Montgomery County – N (U) site; X site; N (B) site; and N (T) site (4 total) 

• Onondaga County – N (C, H) site; N (S) site; N (H) site; and N (U) site (4 total)

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

191/ Native American Sites (N): (B) Burial; (C) Camp site/Tool Production/ Workshop; (H) Habitation/Village/Hamlet; (M) Midden; (O) 

Other; (P) Petroglyph/Pictograph; (Q) Quarry; (R) Rockshelter; (S) Stray Finds/"Traces of Occupation”; (T) Trail; (U) 

Unspecified/Unknown; Historic-Period Sites (H): (B) Burial/Cemetery; (D) Domestic; (F) Transportation/Infrastructure/Utilities; (I) 

Industrial or Commercial Deposits; (M) Maritime; (O) Other; (U) Unspecified/Unknown; (X): Unknown whether Precontact or Historic

Period.

Page 4-274 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological resources and thus any potential 

impacts to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Historic Architectural Resources

There are a total of 18 previously-identified historic architectural resources located in the direct 

APE for Alternative 90A that could experience direct, adverse impacts due to construction-related 

activities. These are:

• Westchester County – Lyndhurst (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 24); and Garrison Landing 

Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 50) (2 total)

• Putnam County – Cold Spring Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 52.5); S/NRlisted Individual: U.S. Military Academy (MP 51); and West Point Foundry (MP 52) (3 total)

• Dutchess County – S/NR-listed Historic District: Wheeler Historic District (MP 64); Stone Street 

Historic District (MP 65); S/NR-listed Individual: National Biscuit Company Carton-Making and 

Printing Plant (MP 59); Mount Gulian (MP 61.5); Carman, Cornelius House (MP 62); Collyer, 

Capt. Moses W. House (MP 62); Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge (MP 74); Poughkeepsie Railroad 

Station (MP 74); and Innis Dye Works (MP 74) (9 total)

• Dutchess/ Columbia Counties – Hudson River Historic District (NHL) (MP 82-102) (1 total)

• Rensselaer County – Schodack Landing Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District); 

Livingston Avenue Bridge (S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 143) (2 total)

• Montgomery County – Dove Creek Culvert (S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 177.5) (1 total)

As in the Base Alternative, work proposed for Alternative 90A is expected to occur within the 

existing right-of way. However, these resources are located within 100 feet of work proposed in the 

right-of-way. Therefore, construction-related activities could result in adverse impacts to these 

resources. A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine 

potential adverse impacts to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the 

direct APE. Impacts would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

There are 51 architectural resources located in the indirect APE for the 90A Alternative. These 

include:

• New York County (Manhattan) – Fort Tryon Park and the Cloisters (S/NR-listed Individual) 

(MP 9) (1 total)

• Bronx County – S/NR-listed Individual: Wave Hill (MP 13); Colgate Robert House (MP 13); and 

the William E. Dodge House (MP 12) (3 total)

• Westchester County – S/NR-listed Individual: Croton North Railroad Station (MP 34); Standard 

House (MP 41); Peekskill Freight Depot (MP 41); Bear Mountain Bridge and Tollhouse (MP 45); 

S/NR-eligible Individual: Tarrytown Railroad Station (MP 25); Riverside Hose Company (MP 

25); and a resource located on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and North Water Street 

(MP 41.5) (7 total)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-275

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Putnam County – S/NR-listed Individual: Wilson House (MP 49.5); Rock Lawn and Carriage 

House; and Eagle’s Nest (MP 51) (3 total)

• Dutchess County – S/NR-listed Historic District: Main Street Historic District (MP 65); Union 

Street Historic District (MP 73.5); Mill Street-North Clover Street Historic District; S/NR-listed 

Individual: Shay’s Warehouse and Stable (MP 65); Shay, William Double House (MP65); Zion 

Memorial Chapel (MP 65); Brower, Abraham House (MP 65); Brower, Adolph House (MP 65); 

Bannerman’s Island Arsenal (MP 55.5); Chelsea Grammar School (MP 62); Church of the Holy 

Comforter (MP 73.5); Pelton Mill (MP 74); Old St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church and Rectory 

(MP 74); Hoffman House (MP 74); Roosevelt Point Cottage and Boathouse (MP 76); Rhinecliff 

Hotel (MP 89); O’Brien General Store and Post Office (MP 89); Riverside Methodist Church and 

Parsonage (MP 89); S/NR-eligible Individual: Metro-North Railroad Bridge (MP 58); MidHudson Bridge (MP 73); Johnson Plumbing Complex (MP 73); and Cornell Boathouse (MP 74.5) 

(22 total)

• Columbia County – Hudson Historic District (MP 114.5) (S/NR-listed Historic District); S/NRlisted Individual: Wiswall, Oliver House (MP 113.8); Requa House (MP 129); and Hudson and 

Boston Railroad Shop (MP 114.5) (4 total)

• Montgomery County – S/NR-eligible Historic District: Amsterdam East Main Street Historic 

District (MP 176); New York Canal System Historic District (MP 159-358.5); S/NR-eligible 

Individual: Guy Park Manor (MP 176.5); 6-8 Voorhees Street (MP 175.5); 366, 399, 401 West 

Main Street (MP 176.5); Guy Park (MP 177); resource on West Main Street (MP 177); and World 

War I Memorial (MP 177.5) (10 total)

• Onondaga County – New York State Fairgrounds Historic District (MP 294) (S/NR-eligible 

Historic District) (1 total)

Although adverse indirect, contextual effects to resources within the indirect APE are not 

anticipated, a field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis to determine potential 

adverse effects to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. 

Indirect effects would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A and 

would include the 90A improvements. Alternative 90B would provide further reductions in travel 

time, by adding 273 miles of dedicated third track and sections of fourth track (totaling 39 miles) 

between Schenectady and Buffalo. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the existing 

railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also proposed.

The work for this alternative also would include a new signal system to support the 90 mile an hour 

speed, new grade crossings, and new undergrade and overhead bridges. Improvements would be 

made at seven existing stations along Empire Corridor West.

The projects proposed for Alternative 90A in the direct and indirect APEs for Empire Corridor 

South (MP 1 to MP 143) also would be included in Alternative 90B. The discussion of potential 

impacts presented above under Alternative 90A is not reiterated in the impacts analysis for 

Alternative 90B. However, the number of archaeological sites and architectural resources 

identified in the direct and indirect APEs for the Empire Corridor South portion of Alternative 90A 

has been included in the total number of resources for Alternative 90B shown in Exhibit 4-64.

Page 4-276 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Parks and Recreational Areas

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, is 

proposed, and parkland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Improvements for Alternative 90B start at MP 160 in the City of Schenectady, which is within an 

urban area that extends west to MP 168. With Alternative 90B, trackwork would start at MP 160 

and extend west from here, crossing over the Mohawk River/Erie Canal on an existing bridge. In 

the City of Schenectady, Front Street Park and Pool adjoins the south side of the railroad on the 

south river bank, and the Glenville Bike Trail, a Section 6(f) funded facility, extends under the 

bridge on the north river bank, but impacts to the park and trail are not anticipated. The potential 

for impacts to this area would be evaluated once more detailed designs are advanced in Tier 2. 

Further set back on the southwest side are Riverside Park in Schenectady and Collins Park and Lake 

in Scotia. At MP 167, the railroad extends north of the Lock 9 Canal Park, which is on the opposite 

(southwest side) of Route 5, but will not impact the park. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way may occur at Amsterdam Station and at MPs 179, 

192, and 200 in Montgomery County. Proposed track and station improvements at Amsterdam 

Station and trackwork at MP 179 are located in the vicinity of the Erie Canal, but should not affect 

the canal. At MP 192, track realignment at a curve and a maintenance service road near MP 200 

would extend outside of the right-of-way, but would not affect parks or recreation facilities. 

Construction of a fourth track and maintenance service road in Herkimer County near the 

Montgomery County line (MPs 210.5 to 214.8) would not involve impacts to parklands. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way between MPs 234 to 238 around the Utica Station 

in Oneida County and around the Syracuse Station (MPs 291 to 292, as addressed under Alternative 

90A) will be located within an urban area and will not affect parklands. New passenger track and a 

maintenance service road will be added in the areas north of the tracks adjoining Onondaga Lake 

County Park, a Section 6(f) park, but are not anticipated to affect parklands. In Wayne County, the 

addition of a maintenance service road may involve right-of-way impacts near MP 341, but this is 

not in the vicinity of parklands. In Monroe County, the addition of a fourth track around the 

Rochester Station could also involve right-of-way impacts (MPs 371 to 376 and MPs 378.2 to 378.6, 

and MPs 379.15 to 379.6). This work will extend in the vicinity of facilities such as Upper Falls 

Park, a Section 6(f) park, in the City of Rochester and will cross the Erie Canal and the Erie 

Canalway Heritage Trail at MP 374.5, but are not anticipated to directly affect parklands. The 

potential for impacts at the canal crossing will be evaluated as designs are advanced in Tier 2.

The addition of a fourth track at Buffalo-Depew Station (MPs 431 to 432) would be located entirely 

within an urban area and will not affect parklands. Double track along the Niagara Branch between 

MPs QDN2 and QDN7 would extend in proximity to Front Park and La Salle Park in Buffalo, but no 

impacts outside the right-of-way are anticipated that could affect these parklands.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-277

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Historic and Cultural Resources

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites

There are 87 previously identified archaeological sites located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B 

(see Exhibit 4-65) that could experience direct, physical impacts due to construction-related 

activities, including 17 burial/habitation sites. These are: 

• Schenectady County – N (B) site; two N (U) sites; X site; N (S) site; N (C) site; N (H) site; and 

two H (U) sites (9 total)

• Montgomery County – seven N (U) sites; nine X sites; two N (C) sites; two H (U) sites; H (I) 

site; three N (P) sites; seven N (H) sites; two N (B) sites; N (S) site; three N (T) sites; two N (S) 

sites; and N (B, H) site (39 total)

• Herkimer County – X site; N (U) site; H (M) site; N (H) site; and four N (S, T) sites (8 total)

• Oneida County – three N (C) sites; and N (B) site; and Sites 1 and 2 identified by the Oneida 

Nation (6 total)

• Onondaga County – N (H) site ; N (C, H) site; four N (S) sites; N (U) site; H (I) site; N (C) site; 

and H (U) site (10 total)

• Cayuga County – N (U) site (1 total)

• Wayne County – N (S) site (1 total)

• Monroe County – N (B) site; N (U) site; N (T, S) site; N (C) site; and N (S) site (5 total)

• Genesee County – two N (T) sites; two N (C, S) sites; N (S) site; and H (D) site (6 total)

• Erie County – N (U) site; and N (C) site (2 total)

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological sites and thus any potential impacts 

to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Historic Architectural Resources

Work proposed for Alternative 90B—which mainly consists of the construction of new track and 

new access road work— could have adverse impacts on architectural resources located within the 

direct APE due to construction-related activities. Exhibit 4-65 provides a summary of the total 

number of architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B.

Only one of the seven existing stations where improvements are proposed for this alternative has 

been identified as a known architectural resource: Utica Station, located in Oneida County, which is

discussed below. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, the other six stations, including Schenectady 

Station, Amsterdam Station, Rome Station, Syracuse Station, Rochester Station, and Buffalo-Depew 

Station, would be evaluated for their potential eligibility for listing on the State/National Registers, 

and impacts would be evaluated for any other stations identified as eligible for S/NR listing. Union 

Station in Utica (referred to within this EIS as the Utica Station) is S/NR-listed. Proposed work at 

this station includes the construction of a new center island platform and overhead pedestrian 

bridge; work in the station area also would include new siding, new passenger and freight track, 

removal of existing track, and new turnouts. This work could have potential adverse impacts on the 

station.

Page 4-278 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

There are 19 architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B that could 

experience direct, adverse impacts due to construction-related activities. These include:

• Schenectady County – Stockade Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 160) (1 

total)

• Schenectady/Montgomery/Madison/Monroe Counties – New York Canal System Historic 

District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (MPs 160, 177, 191, 201, 330, 332.5, and 358.5). The 

non-contiguous historic district includes several resources located along the railroad corridor, 

such as a railroad bridge over Erie Boulevard in Schenectady (MP 160), Lock E-13 in the Town 

of Root, Montgomery County (MP 191), and a moveable dam and lock in the Town of Palatine, 

Montgomery County (MP 201) (1 total)

• Montgomery County – Fort Klock (NHL) (MP 205); Nelliston Historic District (S/NR-listed 

Historic District) (MP 201); S/NR-listed Individual: Guy Park (MP 177); Montgomery County 

Farm (MP 193-194); Palatine Bridge Freight House (MP 197.8); S/NR-eligible Individual: 

Property at the northwest corner of Ann and Main Streets, Amsterdam (MP 177.5); Dove Creek 

Culvert that runs beneath the right-of-way near Steadwell Avenue in the Town of Amsterdam 

(MP 177.5); H.D.F. Veeder House (MP 188); hexagonal limestone well shelter (MP 198); and the 

Palatine Bridge cut limestone retaining wall and bridge abutment (MP 198) (10 total)

• Herkimer County – Little Fall Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (1 total)

• Oneida County – Union Station, Utica (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 237.5); and a railroad 

station building in the village of Oriskany (S/NR-eligible Individual (MP 244.5) (2 total)

• Monroe County – Brown’s Race Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 370); 

S/NR-eligible Individual: Coldwater Station (MP 378); and 60 South Main Street (MP 386) (3 

total)

• Genesee County – Lake Street Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 389) (1 

total)

A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential 

adverse impacts to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. 

Impacts would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

The exact area of the proposed property acquisitions at MPs 168.3, 210.8, 215.6, 237.7, 286.4, 

341.1, 377.6 has not yet been determined. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the 

property to be acquired would be directly adjacent to the existing right-of-way. There are no 

previously-identified architectural resources located in close proximity to these mile markers, with 

one exception: MP 237.7, which is in close proximity to Union Station in Utica (discussed above). 

There could be additional adverse impacts to potential architectural resources as a result of the 

property acquisitions proposed for Alternative 90B. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, properties 

proposed to be acquired would be surveyed to identify any potential architectural resources. 

Impacts would be assessed for any resources identified as eligible for listing on the State/National 

Registers.

It should be noted that there are a number of rail bridges located within the right-of-way, which 

could be adversely affected by work proposed for this alternative. These bridges would be 

identified and evaluated for their potential eligibility for listing on the S/NR listing in the Tier 2 

level analysis. Impacts would be evaluated for any bridges determined to be eligible for S/NR 

listing.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-279

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Indirect APE: Historic Architectural Resources

There are 116 architectural resources located in the indirect APE for Alternative 90B. Exhibit 4-65

provides a summary of the total number of resources located in the indirect APE for this 

alternative. These include:

• Schenectady County – Union Street Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic District) (MP 159.8); 

S/NR-listed Individual: Central Fire Station (MP 159.5); Proctor, F.F. Theater and Arcade (MP 

159.5); and Swart House and Tavern (MP 167.5) (4 total)

• Montgomery County – S/NR-listed Individual: Fort Johnson (MP 179); New Courthouse –

Fonda (MP 186.5); Wagner, Webster House (MP 198); Frey House (MP 198.2); Nellis Tavern 

(MP 205.5); S/NR-eligible Historic District: Amsterdam East Main Street Historic District (MP 

175.8); and Fonda Fairgrounds and Speedway Historic District (MP 186); and S/NR-eligible 

Individual: 6-8 Voorhees Street (MP 175); 366, 399, 401 West Main Street (MP 176.5); World 

War I Memorial (MP 177.8); 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 37 East Main Street (MP 

186); 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 22, 26, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 46, and 56 West Main Street (MP 186); 

1 Cayadutta Street; Lock E-14 and Lock House; and the Nelson and Reese House (including 

cemetery and barn foundations) (MP 207) (43 total)

• Herkimer County – S/NR-listed Individual: Herkimer House (MP 214); U.S. Post Office – Little 

Falls (MP 216.5); Herkimer County Trust Company building (MP 216.5); Palatine German 

Frame House (Wilder House) (MP 227); and S/NR-eligible Individual: 591 East John Street (MP 

216.5); 401, 403, 407 South Ann Street (MP 216.5); Fleet Bank (MP 216.5); Snyder Apartments 

(MP 216.5); 48-54 West Main Street (MP 216.5); 24, 25, 55, 56 West Mill (MP 216.5); 151 

Elizabeth Street (MP 217); and 338 West Main Street (MP 217) (17 total)

• Oneida County – Lower Genesee Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (MP 237.5); 

S/NR-eligible Individual: Foster Brothers Manufacturing Company (MP 237); Hieber, John C. and 

Company building (MP 237.5); Utica Daily Press building (MP 237.5); Hurd & Fitzgerald 

building (MP 237.5); and Byington Mill (Frisbie & Stansfield Knitting Company) (MP 237.5) (7 

total)

• Madison County – South Peterboro Street Commercial Historic District (S/NR-listed Historic 

District); and S/NR-listed Individual: U.S. Post Office – Canastota (MP 270); United Church of 

Canastota (MP 270); 203 South Main Street (MP 270); Canastota Public Library (MP 270); 115 

South Main Street (MP 270); 223 James Street (MP 270); Alvord House (289.5); and East 

Palmyra Presbyterian Church (MP 344.5) (7 total)

• Onondaga County – Alvord House (S/NR-listed Individual (MP 289.5); and New York State 

Fairgrounds Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District (MP 294) (2 total)

• Wayne County – East Palmyra Presbyterian Church (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 344.5); and 

Village of Clyde Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District (MP 328.5) (2 total)

• Monroe County – S/NR-listed Historic District: East Avenue Historic District (MP 368-370); St. 

Paul-North Water Streets Historic District (MP 371); State Street Historic District (MP 371); 

Bridge Square Historic District (MP 372); Madison Square-West Main Street Historic District 

(MP 372); S/NR-listed Individual: Leopold Street Shule (MP 370.5); German United Evangelical 

Church Complex (MP 371); Andrews Street Bridge (MP 371); Federal Building (MP 371); Brick 

Presbyterian Church (371); Washington Street Rowhouses (MP 372); S/NR-eligible Historic 

District: Birch Crescent Historic District (MP 379); Prince Alexander Historic District (MP 370); 

Page 4-280 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Public Market Historic District (MP 370); and S/NR-eligible Individual: Foster Armstrong Piano 

Warehouse (MP 364); 1290, 1255-1257, 1239, 1320 University Avenue (MP 368.5); J. 

Hunderford Smith Company building (MP 369.5); Otis Lumber Company building (MP 369.5); 

Rochester Public Market (MP 370); Schwalb Coal & Oil Company (MP 370.5); Taylor Instrument 

Company (MP 373); Building C2 (H.F. Snyder & Son) (MP 386); and Building Z (former 

Richmond Residence) (MP 386) (26 total)

• Genesee County – Village of Bergen Historic District (S/NR-eligible Historic District) (MP 389); 

and 20 North Lake Street (S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 389) (2 total)

• Erie County – S/NR-listed Individual: Buffalo Gas Light Company Works (MP 2.8); Delaware 

Park-Front Park System (MP 4); S/NR-eligible Historic District: Wende Correctional Facility (MP 

422 ); Joseph Ellicot Downtown Historic District; S/NR-eligible Individual: 1032 Niagara Street 

(MP 5); 1073 Niagara Street (MP 5) (6 total)

Although direct, adverse impacts to architectural resources due to construction-related activities 

are not anticipated for resources located within the indirect APE, it is possible that this alternative 

could have indirect, contextual impacts to these resources. An analysis of potential adverse impacts, 

including visual or contextual impacts, to architectural resources located in the indirect APE for 

Alternative 90B would be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis. A field survey would be 

conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential adverse impacts to these 

resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. Impacts would be assessed 

for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. 

As with Alternative 90B, Alternative 110 also would include a new signal system to support the 110 

mile an hour speed, new grade crossings, and new undergrade and overhead bridges, and the same 

improvements would be made at seven existing stations along Empire Corridor West. 

Parks and Recreational Areas

Empire Corridor South

No additional work within Empire Corridor South, other than that proposed for Alternative 90A, 

are proposed, and additional parkland impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

With Alternative 110, trackwork would start at MP 159 and extend west from here, crossing over 

the Mohawk River/Erie Canal on an existing bridge. In the City of Schenectady, Front Street Park 

and Pool adjoins the south side of the railroad on the south river bank, and the Glenville Bike Trail, 

a Section 6(f) funded facility, extends under the bridge on the north river bank, but impacts to the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-281

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

park and trail are not anticipated. The potential for impacts to this area would be evaluated once 

more detailed designs are advanced in Tier 2. Further set back on the southwest side are Riverside 

Park in Schenectady and Collins Park and Lake in Scotia. At MP 167, the railroad extends north of 

the Lock 9 Canal Park, a Section 6(f) park, which is on the opposite (southwest side) of Route 5, but 

will not impact the park. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way may occur at Amsterdam Station and at other 

locations in Montgomery County. Proposed track and station improvements at Amsterdam Station 

and trackwork at MP 179 are located in the vicinity of the Erie Canal, but should not affect the canal. 

However, the proposed track, but would not affect parks or recreation facilities. 

Construction of a fourth track and maintenance service road in Herkimer County near the 

Montgomery County line (MPs 210.5 to 214.8) would not involve impacts to parklands. 

Work that may extend outside of the right-of-way around the Utica Station in Oneida County and 

around the Syracuse Station, but will be located within urban areas and will not affect parklands. 

New passenger track and a maintenance service road will be added in the areas north of the tracks 

adjoining Onondaga Lake County Park, a Section 6(f) park, but are not anticipated to affect 

parklands. In Monroe County, the addition of a fourth track around the Rochester Station could also 

involve right-of-way impacts. This work will extend in the vicinity of facilities such as Upper Falls 

Park, a Section 6(f) park, in the City of Rochester and will cross the Erie Canal and the Erie 

Canalway Heritage Trail at MP 374.5, but are not anticipated to directly affect parklands. The 

potential for impacts at the canal crossing will be evaluated as designs are advanced in Tier 2.

In Genesee County, Alternative 110 may impact a county park at MP 402. The proposed track 

alignment passes through the Dewitt County Recreational Facility in the Town of Batavia.

Historic and Cultural Resources

Exhibit 4-65 provides a summary of the total number of archaeological sites and architectural 

resources located in the APEs for Alternative 110.

As with Alternative 90B, the projects proposed for Alternative 90A in the direct and indirect APEs 

for Empire Corridor South (MP 1 to MP 143) also would be included in Alternative 110. The 

discussion of potential impacts presented above under Alternative 90A is not reiterated in the 

impacts analysis for Alternative 110. However, the number of archaeological sites and architectural 

resources identified in the direct and indirect APEs for the Empire Corridor South portion of 

Alternative 90A has been included in the total number of resources for Alternative 110 shown in 

Exhibit 4-65.

Direct APE: Archaeological Sites

A majority of the previously-identified archaeological sites that have the potential to be adversely 

impacted by the Alternative 110 are the same as those that could be adversely impacted by the 

similar projects proposed for Alternative 90B, including 18 burial/habitation sites. There are three 

exceptions:

Page 4-282 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Two N (U) sites located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B in Schenectady County are not 

located in the direct APE for Alternative 110.

• One N (S) site located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B in Montgomery County would not be 

located in the direct APE for Alternative 110. One N (H) site in Montgomery County located in 

the direct APE for Alternative 110 is not located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B.

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological sites and thus any potential impacts 

to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Historic Architectural Resources

The number of NHLs, S/NR-listed Historic Districts, S/NR-listed Individual resources, S/NR-eligible

Historic Districts, and S/NR-eligible Individual resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 

110 are the same as the number of resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 90B. 

Therefore, the number of previously identified architectural resources that could experience 

adverse, direct impacts due to construction-related activities in Alternative 110 is the same as those 

for Alternative 90B. 

As with Alternative 90B, there are seven existing stations along Empire Corridor West where 

improvements are proposed for Alternative 110—one of which has been identified as a known 

architectural resource: Utica Station, located in Oneida County. The other six stations where 

improvements are proposed would be evaluated for their potential eligibility for listing on the 

State/National Registers, then impacts would be assessed for any stations identified as eligible for 

S/NR listing. Additionally, as with Alternative 90B, there are a number of rail bridges located 

within the right-of-way, which could be adversely impacted by work proposed for this alternative. 

As part of the level Tier 2 analysis, these bridges would be identified and evaluated for their 

potential eligibility for S/NR listing, then adverse impacts would be assessed for any bridges 

determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Certain elements of Alternative 110, including the proposed realignment of sections of Route 5, 

could potentially impact residential and commercial buildings outside the right-of-way at the 

following locations: MPs 164.5-165.4; 172.6; 173.6; 183.2; 184.5; 185; 186.8; 187.3; 189; 191.7; 

192.5-192.8; 196.4; 196.7; 196.9; 198; 200.6; 210.8; 226.4-227; 228; 230.4-230.9; 360.6; 361.2; and 

402.4. Although there are no previously identified architectural resources within close proximity to 

these locations, as part of the level Tier 2 analysis, the potentially affected properties would be 

surveyed to identify any potential architectural resources that may eligible for listing on the 

State/National Registers.

The exact area of the proposed property acquisitions at MPs 168.3, 184.6, 186.3, 191.7, 198.1, 

200.6, 207.5, 210.8, 215.1, 226.9, 228.0, 230.8, 237.2, 286.4, 341.1, 361.4, 377.6, and 389.1 has not 

yet been determined. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the property to be acquired 

would be directly adjacent to the existing right-of-way. Although there are no previously identified 

architectural resources located in close proximity to these mile markers, there could be adverse 

impacts to potential architectural resources as a result of the property acquisitions proposed for 

Alternative 110. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, properties proposed to be acquired would be 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-283

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

surveyed to identify any potential architectural resources. Impacts would then be assessed for any 

resources identified as eligible for S/NR listing.

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

As with the direct APE, the number of NHLs, S/NR-listed Historic Districts, S/NR-listed Individual 

resources, S/NR-eligible Historic Districts, and S/NR-eligible Individual resources located in the 

indirect APE for Alternative 110 are the same as the number of resources located in the indirect 

APE for Alternative 90B, with the addition of the Walrath-Van Horne House (MP 201.5), an S/NRlisted individual resource in Montgomery County. Although direct, adverse impacts to these 

architectural resources due to construction-related activities are not anticipated for resources 

located within the indirect APE, it is possible that this alternative could have indirect, contextual 

effects to these resources. An analysis of potential adverse indirect impacts, including visual or 

contextual impacts, to architectural resources located in the indirect APE for Alternative 110 would 

be conducted during the Tier 2 analysis. A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 

analysis in order to determine potential adverse impacts to these resources and to identify 

potential architectural resources in the APE. Impacts would be assessed for any resources 

determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks 

approximately 283 miles in length on new alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and 

Buffalo. Alternative 125 would use 125 miles per hour as the MAS and would be the first speed 

threshold for electrically powered trains. Trains would operate on the existing Hudson Line 

Corridor from New York Penn Station to Albany/Rensselaer Station. The new corridor would 

parallel the existing corridor on a combination of new and existing right-of-way to serve existing 

stations in Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Required infrastructure would include 

roadbed, track, viaducts, bridges, cuts, embankments, access roads, railroad systems, maintenance 

facilities and other support facilities.

Parks and Recreational Areas

Alternative 125 would include Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara 

Branch. Alternative 90A would largely be situated within the right-of-way and therefore would not 

involve substantial parkland impacts. 

Empire Corridor South

No new improvements, beyond what is proposed for Alternative 90A, would be proposed for 

Alternative 125 along the majority of Empire Corridor South. However, roughly one mile of the 

proposed 125 mph track would extend south from Albany-Rensselaer Station to cross the Hudson 

River. Since there are no parklands within this one-mile section of rail corridor, there are no 

additional impacts to parklands within Empire Corridor South.

Page 4-284 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. This route covers 126 miles on new alignment between Rensselaer County and a 

point 8.5 miles east of Syracuse Station. Alternative 125 extends through urban areas in Albany and 

Schenectady Counties over a distance of 20 miles, following the New York State Thruway (I-87/I90) over most of this distance. 

Capital Hills Public Golf Course in Albany County is located immediately south of Alternative 125 

where it extends through the median of the New York State Thruway between MPs QH146 and 

QH147, but no impacts to the golf course are anticipated. At MP QH152, the New York State 

Thruway and Alternative 125 enter the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. At MP QH153, Alternative 125 

transitions off of the thruway median and may impact the Albany Pine Bush Preserve at this 

location, which is a Section 6(f)-funded park. At MP QH155, Alternative 125 may impact Fusco 

Town Park located directly to the south of the Thruway and the rail corridor. Direct impacts to 

parklands in Schenectady County are not anticipated for Alternative 125.

In Herkimer County, between MPs QH217 and QH218, Alternative 125 passes through a wooded 

area in Russell Park within the Town of German Flatts. 

In Oneida County, Alternative 125 passes just south of Washington Mills Athletic Park located west 

of Route 5 at MP QH230. This facility is approximately 250 feet from the new rail and no impacts to 

this park are anticipated with this alternative. Between MPs QH244 and QH245, Alternative 125 

also passes through Atunyote Golf Club, owned by the Oneida Nation, within the Town of Vernon. If 

Alternative 125 is advanced to Tier 2, design will be refined to minimize or avoid impacts on the 

Oneida Nation recreational use. 

Alternative 125 crosses Erie Canal State Park at three locations before meeting up with the existing 

rail corridor at MP 283 (just before MP QH269 in the 125 Study Area). The three Erie Canal State 

Park crossings are located between MPs QH260 and QH261; between MPs QH262 and QH263, both 

in Madison County; and between MPs QH265 and QH266 in Onondaga County. Old Erie Canal State 

Historic Park has received Section 6(f) funding.

In Onondaga County, the alignment merges with the existing Empire Corridor. Just before the 

merge, Alternative 125 crosses South Main Street in the village of Minoa and comes within a block 

of Lewis Park although no impacts to the park are anticipated. Alternative 125 extends through 16 

miles of urban area surrounding the City of Syracuse. Just west of the Syracuse station at MP 

QH278.5, Alternative 125 passes by Onondaga Lake County Park, a Section 6(f) park. The tracks 

would be on elevated structure above the existing tracks at this location, so right-of-way should be 

minimized. Before the alignment diverges from the existing Empire Corridor, Alternative 125 

passes by the State Fairgrounds between MPs QH281 and QH282. No impacts to these parklands 

are anticipated since work within these areas is limited to the right-of-way. 

At MP QH284, Alternative 125 diverges from the existing Empire Corridor and continues on a new 

alignment 61 miles west to a point 11 miles east of Rochester Station in Monroe county. There are 

no impacts to parklands anticipated within these 61 miles of the Alternative 125. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-285

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

In Monroe County, Alternative 125 passes just south of Beechwoods Park at MP QH344 but no 

impacts to the park are anticipated. Alternative 125 rejoins the existing Empire Corridor at MP 

QH346, diverging again at MP QH361, 5.5 miles west of Rochester Station, to continue on new 

alignment 52 miles west to Buffalo in Erie County. In Monroe County, close to the Genesee border, 

Alternative 125 passes near Churchville County Park, a Section 6(f)-funded park, at MP QH371. No 

additional impacts to parklands are anticipated for the remainder of the 125 Study Area from MP 

QH371 to where it merges back to the existing corridor at MP QH413 in Erie County. No impacts to

parklands are anticipated to the end of the Empire Corridor West section at the Buffalo-Exchange 

Street station. 

In Erie County, just past MP QH408, Alternative 125 passes near Clarence Town Park, which may be 

impacted by this alternative. Between MPs QH408 and QH409, this alternative passes through the 

Tillman Road Swamp State Wildlife Management Area that may be impacted. 

Historic and Cultural Resources

The projects proposed for Alternative 90A in the direct and indirect APEs for Empire Corridor 

South (MP 1 to MP 143) and the Niagara Branch also would be included in Alternative 125. The 

discussion of potential impacts presented under Alternative 90A is not reiterated in the impacts 

analysis for Alternative 125. However, the number of archaeological sites and architectural 

resources identified in the direct and indirect APEs for the Empire Corridor South portion of 

Alternative 90A has been included in the total number of resources for Alternative 125 shown in

Exhibit 4-65. The Programmatic Agreement (included as Appendix H) addresses the process by 

which FRA and NYSDOT intend to comply with Section 106 for undertakings occurring on tribal 

lands or where adverse effects to historic properties of a religious or cultural significance to a tribe 

occur off tribal land. 

Direct APE: Archaeological Resources

There are 32 previously identified archaeological sites located in the direct APE of proposed new 

track for Alternative 125 (see Exhibit 4-65) that could experience direct, physical impacts due to 

construction-related activities, including six burial/habitation sites. These are: 

• Albany County – two N (C) sites; and H (I) site (3 total)

• Schenectady County –N (C) site (1 total)

• Schoharie County – N (U) site (1 total)

• Montgomery County –N (S), H (U) site; H (U) site (2 total)

• Herkimer County – H (B) site (1 total)

• Oneida County – N (C) sites; N (B) site; N (H) site; and Site 3 identified by the Oneida Nation (4 

total)Madison County – two N (S) sites; N (C) site; and Sites 4 and 5 identified by the Oneida 

Nation (5 total)

• Onondaga County – two N (H) sites ; two N (S) sites; two H (D) sites; and N (C) site (7 total)

• Cayuga County – N (B); and N (S) site (2 total)

• Wayne County – N (S) site; and N (C) site (2 total)

• Genesee County – two N (C) sites; and N (S) site (3 total)

Page 4-286 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Erie County – two N (C) sites; N (C, S) site; and N (S) site (4 total)

As part of the Tier 2 analysis, field investigations would be conducted in those areas of the direct 

APE that have been identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive, in order to determine the 

presence or absence of potentially S/NR-eligible archaeological sites and thus any potential impacts 

to archaeological resources.

Direct APE: Historic Architectural Resources

Work proposed for the Alternative 125—which mainly consists of the construction of new track—

could have adverse impacts on architectural resources located within the direct APE due to 

construction-related activities. Exhibit 4-65 provides a summary of the total number of 

architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 125.

There are three architectural resources located in the direct APE for Alternative 125 that could 

experience direct, adverse impacts due to construction-related activities. These include:

• Schenectady County – Liddle, Robert Farmhouse (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 167) (1 total)

• Madison County – Deferriere House (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 252.8) (1 total)

• Erie County – Hull, Warren House (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 411) (1 total)

A field survey would be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential 

adverse impacts to these resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. 

Impacts would be assessed for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

Indirect APE: Architectural Resources

There are five architectural resources located in the indirect APE for the Alternative 125. Exhibit 

4-65 provides a summary of the total number of resources located in the indirect APE for this 

alternative. These include:

• Albany County – Nut Grove (S/NR-listed Individual) (MP 144); and 924 New Scotland Road 

(S/NR-eligible Individual) (MP 147) (2 total)

• Schenectady County – S/NR-listed Individual: Reformed Presbyterian Church Parsonage (MP 

169); and Halladay House (MP 172); and US 20 between Knight and Mudge Roads (S/NReligible Individual) (MP 170.5) (3 total)

Although direct, adverse impacts to architectural resources due to construction-related activities 

are not anticipated for resources located within the indirect APE, it is possible that this alternative 

could have indirect, contextual impacts to these resources. An analysis of potential adverse impacts, 

including visual or contextual impacts, to architectural resources located in the indirect APE for 

Alternative 125 would be conducted during the Tier 2 level analysis. A field survey would be 

conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis in order to determine potential adverse impacts to these 

resources and to identify potential architectural resources in the APE. Impacts would be assessed 

for any resources determined to be S/NR-eligible.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-287

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.23.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Parks and Recreational Areas

Mitigation for impacts on parklands and recreation areas will include avoiding and minimizing 

impacts to the extent practicable. Compliance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act requires that alternatives that avoid or minimize impacts be 

evaluated, and, if impacts are proposed, mitigation measures be developed, in consultation with 

officials with jurisdiction. If parklands that have received Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

grants will be converted, Section 6(f) requires that recreation property of equal fair market value 

and usefulness be provided as compensation.

Mitigation measures may include permanent measures, such as providing trail connections or 

compensatory parkland, or construction mitigation, such as maintaining trail or park access during 

construction or using time-of-year restrictions on construction work. Other considerations will 

include ameliorating potential visual and noise impacts on adjoining parks or recreation areas, and 

further assessments of these impacts and mitigation measures will also be advanced in Tier 2.

Historic and Cultural Resources

A draft Programmatic Agreement has been prepared for this program (see Appendix H), which 

identifies a methodology for Section 106 process implemented for component projects advanced at 

the Tier 2 level. The PA would be signed by the FRA as lead federal agency, NYSDOT, and the SHPO. 

Participating federally recognized tribes and consulting parties would be invited to sign the PA as 

concurring parties. The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) declined to participate in 

the development of the PA via e-mail dated July 20, 2012. However, ACHP may choose to 

participate in the consultation when there are substantial impacts to historic properties, when a 

case presents important questions of policy or interpretation, when there is a potential for 

procedural problems, or when there are issues of concern to Indian tribes. ACHP must be invited to 

participate when the federal agency sponsoring a project wants the Council’s involvement and 

when the project would have an adverse effect on a NHL. Execution of the PA and implementation 

of the terms therein satisfies the requirement of Section 106 that the Council be given a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the Tier 1 undertaking, and demonstrates that the federal agency has 

taken into account the effects of the action. 

For archaeological resources, mitigation measures that may be identified for component projects at 

the Tier 2 level may include Phase III data recovery, documentation, geoarchaeological survey, 

preparation and implementation of archaeological protection plans, and/or preparation of public 

education materials.

For architectural resources, possible mitigation measures include: 

• The preservation or relocation of historic buildings; 

• Documentation of resources following Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic 

American Engineering Record (HAER) standards; 

• Production of educational materials interpreting the history and significance of affected 

resources for use by local libraries, historical societies, and educational institutions; and

Page 4-288 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Installation of signage interpreting the history and significance of affected resources along the 

proposed rail corridor, or planting vegetation or creating noise barriers along the proposed rail 

corridor. 

Furthermore, in order to avoid inadvertent damage to historic resources located in close proximity 

to possible project construction, all appropriate resources would be included in a Construction 

Protection Plan (CPP). The CPP would identify the historic resources to be included in the plan. It 

would also set for the specific measures to be used and specifications that would be applied to 

protect these resources during the construction period. 

If unavoidable potential direct and/or indirect adverse effects are identified during the Tier 2 

analysis, more detailed and specific measures to minimize and/or mitigate these effects would be 

defined and implemented in consultation with SHPO, involved THPOs and/or Tribal Organizations, 

ACHP (if appropriate), and any involved consulting parties, as described in the draft PA and noted 

under 4.23.6, “Future Analysis.”

4.23.6. Future Analysis

Parks and Recreational Areas

Once an alternative has been selected, the Tier 2 assessments will include a thorough inventory of 

publicly owned parks and recreation facilities, as well as non-profit parklands that may be 

potentially affected. Detailed property mapping and information on the extent of public access, use 

and ownership for parks and recreation areas will be obtained. Consultation with public officials 

and property owners/officials with jurisdiction will be performed regarding the use of the 

parks/recreation areas and potential impacts and mitigation measures. For potential parkland 

impacts, the applicability of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and Section 

6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Act will be determined. Officials with jurisdiction will 

be identified and consulted for potential Section 4(f) parklands to determine the potential 

applicability of Section 4(f). Those parklands for which Land and Water Conservation funds were 

expended will also be identified.

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act applies to two categories of resources: 1) 

publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges; and 2) significant 

historic sites, regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned. Section 4(f) has 

prohibited the U.S. DOT from approving the “use” of Section 4(f) properties unless U.S. DOT makes 

two findings: 1) that there is no feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the use of Section 4(f) 

properties, and 2) that the project incorporates all possible planning to minimize the harm that 

results from the use of those resources. Avoidance and minimization measures will be evaluated in 

Tier 2, and if it is not possible to eliminate impacts on Section 4(f) resources, appropriate mitigation 

measures will be identified. The process for evaluations of historic properties are discussed further 

in the following section.

Section 4(f) requires the U.S. DOT to seek comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior (and 

in some cases other agencies) before making these findings. The extent of impact and use of Section 

4(f) properties will be determined, and potential impacts on Section 4(f) properties will be 

assessed. If a use of a Section 4(f) park or recreation property is determined to occur, a Section 4(f) 

Evaluation will be prepared and circulated as part of Tier 2. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-289

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Section 6(f) applies to parklands on which Land and Water Conservation Funding has been 

expended. If a Section 6(f) conversion may occur, then a Section 6(f) Evaluation must be prepared 

as part of Tier 2 and approved by the National Park Service. The Section 6(f) Evaluation must 

evaluate all practical alternatives to converting the Section 6(f) property and demonstrate that 

there are no feasible means of avoiding the conversion. If a conversion will occur, the Section 6(f) 

Evaluation must identify replacement property to be acquired of reasonably equivalent usefulness 

and location and of at least equal fair market value to the converted property. 

Historic and Cultural Resources

As described in the “Methodology” section, the environmental compliance for this program is being 

conducted using a phased approach as outlined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) and 800.5(a)(3). 

Determinations of eligibility and effect under Section 106 of NHPA may be deferred to Tier 2 of the 

process under the terms of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.14(b). A draft PA, included as Appendix H, provides a mechanism and framework for meeting 

NHPA compliance obligations in the Tier 2 phase of the program. The draft PA identifies a protocol 

for preparing site-specific environmental documentation for component projects, as appropriate, in 

subsequent phases or tiers of the program in accordance with NEPA and NHPA. The PA sets forth 

guidelines for the following procedures at the Tier 2 level: consultation with SHPO, federally 

recognized tribes, other consulting parties; delineation of APEs and identification and evaluation of 

historic properties; assessment of adverse effects; and resolution of adverse effects. The PA also 

provides a list of property types exempt from review as historic properties and a list of routine 

maintenance activities that would be exempt from the Section 106 methodology outlined in the PA.

As component projects are progressed to the Tier 2 level, APEs for each component project would 

be developed in consultation with SHPO, federally recognized tribes and consulting parties, as 

appropriate to reflect the effects of each Tier 2 project. More detailed existing conditions data 

collection and effects assessments, the protocol for which is outlined in detail in the draft PA, would 

be conducted as part of the Tier 2 analysis. Existing conditions data presented in this Tier 1 

document would be revised and/or expanded upon as appropriate to account for all historic 

properties in the APEs of component projects assessed at the Tier 2 level. In regard to 

archaeological resources, archaeological documentary studies and field investigations (where 

appropriate) would be conducted in sensitive portions of the direct APEs to determine the presence 

or absence of S/NR-eligible archaeological resources. If S/NR-eligible archaeological resources are 

identified in the direct APEs that could be affected by the proposed project, additional 

investigations (such as Phase II field surveys) would be undertaken to determine the physical 

extents and significance (S/NR eligibility) of archaeological sites.

For architectural resources, additional existing conditions data that would be collected as part of 

the Tier 2 analysis would include the identification of architectural resources that meet the S/NR 

criteria but had not been previously determined S/NR-eligible. The bridges and railroad facilities 

located within the direct APEs also would be evaluated for S/NR-eligibility as part of the Tier 2 

analysis. In order to evaluate the significance of these resources, an architectural historian would 

conduct a field visit and prepare documentation in the form of a Cultural Resources Survey (CRS) 

Report. The content, methodology, level of effort, and documentation requirements for historic 

property evaluations in the CRS shall be conducted in accordance with State Education Department 

(SED) Work Scope Standards, which incorporate the standards of the New York Archaeological 

Council (NYAC). Based on this documentation, FRA would make determinations of eligibility in 

Page 4-290 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

consultation with SHPO.

Once the additional data collection for existing conditions in the APEs has been completed, the 

effect of project alternatives on historic properties will be evaluated. The Advisory Council’s 

Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR 800.5[a][1]) will be applied to determine effects on the historic 

properties. In general, an adverse effect occurs when a proposed project may cause a change in the 

characteristics of a property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. The proposed 

project’s adverse effects will be identified in coordination with ACHP, SHPO, participating federally 

recognized tribes, and consulting parties. The lead agency will issue an Effect Finding in accordance 

with 36 CFR 800.11(e).

If the analysis concludes that a proposed project would have an adverse effect, measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects will be identified. This mitigation most likely will be 

implemented through project-level Memorandum(a) of Agreement (MOA). A PA differs from an 

MOA in that MOAs are used to resolve known and definable adverse effects on historic properties, 

whereas PAs are used when the effects of an undertaking are not fully known. All appropriate 

coordination with ACHP, SHPO, and applicable THPOs, tribal organizations, and consulting parties, 

would be undertaken as part of this process in compliance with Section 106. Guidelines for MOAs 

prepared as part of component projects at the Tier 2 level are provided in the Draft PA.

As noted above in “Regulatory Context,” in addition to Section 106, the effects of the undertaking on 

historic properties will also be considered under Section 110 of NHPA and Section 4(f) as part of a 

separate future analysis. Section 110 of NHPA mandates additional protection of NHLs by requiring 

that federal agencies undertake planning and actions as necessary to minimize harm when 

considering undertakings that may directly and adversely affect NHLs. Section 4(f) prohibits 

actions by the Secretary of Transportation that require “use” of a historic property that is listed in 

or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, unless a determination is made that there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and all possible planning has been 

undertaken to minimize harm to the 4(f) property. 

4.24. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Indirect and cumulative impacts include reasonably foreseeable actions and proposed and planned 

actions. This Tier 1 evaluation presents a generalized assessment of these impacts based on Tier 1 

concepts that would be further refined in the Tier 2, once the scope and timing of improvement projects 

are better defined.

4.24.1. Regulatory Context

The National Environmental Policy Act regulations promulgated by the Council of Environmental 

Quality define both indirect effects and cumulative impacts,192 as follows:

“Indirect) effects, are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other 

192/ Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8, December 21, 1984.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-291

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, 

and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”

"Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. 

4.24.2. Methodology

For the Tier 1 analysis, the indirect impacts were qualitatively addressed for the program on a 

generalized basis. This cumulative impact assessment involved researching projects listed on New 

York State Rail Plan, the NYSDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program for Federal Fiscal 

Years 2011 – 2014 for the different planning regions in the study area. The projects that were in the 

vicinity of the study area and are in the planning phases but are projected to be built in the same 

timeframe as the Tier 2 program were considered in the analysis. 

4.24.3. Considerations for Impact Assessment

The considerations for the cumulatives and indirect impact assessment are described below: 

Indirect Impacts

The types of indirect environmental impacts that can occur as a result of induced development or 

changes are described below:

• Traffic and Transportation: Increased traffic can occur if secondary development is induced 

as a result of the program.

• Land Use: Changes in land uses or land use patterns can arise if secondary development occurs 

as a result of the program, potentially causing an increase in property values or the intensity or 

patterns of land use development.

• Employment, Population, and Businesses: Indirect impacts resulting from improvements in 

passenger rail service have the potential to affect changes in socioeconomic conditions, such as 

employment and population, and can positively affect business sales and revenues.

• Environmental Justice and Community Facilities: Secondary development has the potential 

to affect communities and environmental justice populations through changes in development 

patterns, traffic, or property values.

• Coastal/Water Resources and Floodplains: Secondary development can result in direct or 

indirect effects on surface waters, aquifers, floodplains, and wetlands, although the extent of 

this conversion depends on the siting and location of development and regulatory mechanism 

to minimize/mitigate any fills.

Page 4-292 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Ecology and SEQR Critical Areas: Secondary development has the potential to directly or 

indirectly affect aquatic and wildlife habitats and critical areas protected under SEQR, although 

the extent of this effect is dependent on the siting, location, and nature of the development and 

measures to minimize/mitigation any effects.

• Cultural Resources, Parks, Visual Resources: Secondary development may have the 

potential to affect historic or archaeological sites, parks, or scenic landscapes, although any 

impacts would likely be required to be mitigated, including potential provision of historic 

mitigation and additional parklands or other amenities.

• Farmlands: Secondary development has the potential to affect actively farmed lands and 

prime farmland soils or soils of statewide importance. 

• Air Quality, Noise, Energy/Climate Change: Increased traffic from secondary development 

has the potential to increase noise and emissions of air pollutants, which can affect energy use 

and climate change.

• Contaminated and Hazardous Materials: Secondary development has the potential to affect 

either existing contaminated or hazardous materials sites or the generation of 

contaminated/hazardous materials.

Cumulative Impacts

A review of the New York State Department of Transportation Improvement Program and the New 

York State Thruway Authority improvements program was performed to identify projects in the 

vicinity of the Empire Corridor that may involve capacity improvements (see Exhibit 4-66). The 

projects identified included the following:

• Moynihan Station Redevelopment/Improvements, Manhattan (New York County), New York City;

• Route 17 Upgrade to I-86: Exit 130A to 131; 

• Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement, Tarrytown (Westchester County) and Nyack (Rockland County);

• New York State Thruway (I-87) Reconstruction and Mobility Improvement Project between Interchanges 

23 (I-787) and 24 (I-90), City of Albany (Albany County);

• Improve I-87 (Adirondack Northway) Access to Wolf Road/Airport Area by Reconstructing Exit 4 or by 

Constructing a New Interchange, Town of Colonie (Albany County);

• I-390 Interchange Improvements at I-490 (Part 1 of 3) Reconstruction, Town of Gates (Monroe County);

• Peace Bridge Plaza and Connecting Roadway System, City of Buffalo (Erie County);

• Highway Widening of East Robinson/North French from Route 62 to Sweet Home Road (Route 952T), 

Town of Amherst (Erie County);

• Highway Widening of Route 62 from Krueger Road to North Tonawanda line, Town of Wheatfield 

(Niagara County);

• New Highway Construction, John B. Daly Boulevard Extension from Niagara Street to Pine Avenue, City of 

Niagara Falls (Niagara County).

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-293

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

Exhibit 4-66—Projects in the Vicinity of the Empire Corridor

Other Transportation Projects 

and Location Project Description Implementation

Moynihan Station 

Redevelopment/ Improvements

Manhattan, New York County –

Pennsylvania Station

Phase 1:

• Two new entrances through the Farley building

• Extension of the West End Concourse to serve eight 

additional tracks

• Doubling of concourse width

• New stairs, escalators, and elevators from the platforms 

up to the station to meet ADA requirements

• Est. $150 million

Phase 1: 

• Begin October 

2012

• Complete in 2016

Route 17 Upgrade to I-86

Woodbury, Orange County – Route 

17 Exit 130 to 131A. 

• 7 miles west of MP 44 on existing Empire Corridor 

• Add ramp from Route 32 SB to Route 17 EB

• Est. $50.4 million

Currently in 

development.

Construction Summer 

2017 through Summer 

2018

Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement

Tarrytown and Nyack, 

Westchester/ Rockland Counties. 

• Crosses Hudson River and Empire Corridor near MP 24.5

• New bridge, over three miles long, to accommodate 

transit services in the future (both dedicated bus lanes 

and eventual commuter rail)

• Est. $3.5 to $5 billion.

3 to 5.5 years of 

construction. Est. 

opening, 2017

I-87 Reconstruction & Mobility 

Improvement Project between 

Interchanges 23 and 24

Albany County –

• One to four miles south of existing Empire Corridor 

between MP 141 and MP 149

• Reconstruction of 7 existing miles along I-87

• Third travel lane NB and SB

• Est. $99.7 million, funded through toll revenues

Construction began 

March 2011. Expected 

completion Fall 2013

Improve I-87 (Adirondack 

Northway) Exit 4 

Reconstruction or New 

Interchange

Colonie, Albany County – Access to 

Wolf Road/Airport Area. 

• Three miles north of MP 147 on existing Empire Corridor 

• Improve access to Albany International Airport

• Repair/Replace Exit 4 bridge to address conditions and 

operational problems

• Est. $29 to $41.2 million

Phase 1: 

• Final plans Winter 

2012/13

• Begin construction 

Spring 2013

• end construction 

Fall 2014

I-390 Interchange 

Improvements at I-490

Gates, Monroe County –

• One mile north of MP 375 on existing Empire Corridor 

• Improve rush hour traffic flow & reducing congestion at 

Route 390 SB ramp to I-490 EX and the I-490 WB ramp to 

Route 390 NB

• Improve traffic flow at Lyell Avenue Interchange and 

make necessary repairs to bridge over Route 390

Currently in design 

phase. Construction to 

begin summer 2014

Peace Bridge Plaza and 

Connecting Roadway System

Buffalo, Erie County –

• MP QDN4.5 on Niagara Branch 

• Expand current plaza from 17 acres to 25 acres

• Est. $85 million

Peace Bridge Capacity 

Expansion project 

funded through 2030

Highway Widening of East 

Robinson/North French

Amherst, Erie County – Route 62 

to Sweet Home Road (Route 95T). 

• Three miles east of MP QDN14 on Niagara Branch 

• 1 mile expansion and improvement of East 

Robinson/North French Road

Five year TIP funding 

2007 through 2012

Highway Widening of Route 62

Wheatfield, Niagara County –

Krueger Road to North 

Tonawanda line, 

• 2.5 miles east of MP QDN18.5 on Niagara Branch

• 1.3 mile widening/expansion of Route 62 TIP 2008 through 2012

John B. Daly Boulevard 

Extension

Niagara Falls, Niagara County –

• One mile south of MP QDN28 on Niagara Branch 

• New highway extending 0.4 miles north along 8th St. 

between Niagara St. & Pine Avenue

• Est. $4.7 million

TIP 2010 through 2015

Page 4-294 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-295 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Of	 these	 improvements,	 the	 improvements	 that	 may	 have	 more	 of	 a	 regional	 effect	 include	 the	

Moynihan	 Station	 redevelopment,	 which	 may	 have	 the	 potential	 for	 secondary	 development	

impacts	in	downtown	Manhattan.		Interchange	improvements	proposed	and	highway	widening	can	

create	the	potential	for	more	traffic,	and	this	could	create	cumulative	and	secondary	development	

impacts	in	the	area	of	the	improvements.		In	Westchester	County,	the	Tappan	Zee	Bridge	may	have	

the	potential	to	influence	developments,	but	mainly	concentrated	in	the	vicinity	of	the	crossing	at	

Tarrytown,		New	York	and	Nyack,	Rockland	County.		New	York	State	Thruway	Improvements	that	

will	 add	 a	 travel	 lane	 in	 each	 direction	 and	 other	 interstate	 interchanges	 improvements	 on	 the	

Adirondack	Northway	and	at	I‐390	and	I‐490	would	have	a	potentially	greater	impact	on	regional	

access	 and	 secondary	 development	 at	 the	interchanges.	 	 The	 Peace	 Bridge	 Plaza	 and	 Connecting	

Roadway	 System	 will	 also	 have	 more	 of	 a	 regional	 impact	 in	 the	 mobility	 of	 goods	 and	 people,	

particularly	 if	 the	 planned	 replacement	 of	 the	 Peace	 Bridge	 provides	 a	 larger	 capacity	 crossing	

when	it		is	eventually	constructed.		

4.24.4. Environmental Consequences

Cumulative	impacts	accounts	 for	 the	 total	impact	on	 the	environment	of	incremental	actions	over	

time.		The	suite	of	railroad	improvements	along	the	Empire	Corridor	that	are	either	proposed	or	are	

in	 the	 planning	 stages	 (e.g.,	 station,	 track,	 and	 signal	 improvements	 along	 the	 Empire	 Corridor)	

have	 largely	 been	 incorporated	 into	 the	 program	 alternatives	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Base	 or	 90A	

Alternatives	 that	 are	 carried	 through	 to	 Alternatives	 90B,	 110,	 and	 125	 to	 varying	 degrees.		

Therefore,	the	cumulative	impacts	of	these	rail	improvements	are	considered	as	part	of	the	impact	

assessment	 performed	in	 the	 previous	 chapters.	 	 Exhibit	 4‐66	 presents	 other	improvements	 that	

may	also	have	an	effect	on	the	cumulative	environmental	impact,	although	these	are	localized	in	the	

immediate	 area	 of	 the	 proposed	 improvements	 (e.g.,	 Tappan	 Zee	 Bridge	 impacts	 may	 be	

concentrated	 in	 Westchester	 and	 Rockland	 Counties).	 	 Many	 of	 these	 improvements	 are	 minor	

highway	widenings	or	access/interchange	improvements	that	do	not	extend	more	than	a	mile	or	so	

in	length	and	therefore	would	have	a	very	localized	effect,	if	any.	

Indirect	impacts	include	impacts	associated	with	developments	that	would	occur	later	in	time	that	

may	be	potentially	induced	by	 the	program.		This	 type	of	secondary	development	would	be	most	

likely	centered	on	the	existing	passenger	stations.		The	improvements	in	rail	service	may	enhance	

the	 attractiveness	 of	 the	 area	 for	 businesses	 and	 residents,	 thereby	 potentially	 encouraging	

secondary	development.		Although	this	effect	may	be	widespread	along	the	rail	corridor,	its	effects	

may	be	most	pronounced	in	the	vicinity	of	the	existing	station	sites.		However,	since,	for	the	most	

part,	the	stations	will	not	be	relocated,	the	potential	for	secondary	development	would	be	smaller	

than	if	a	new	station	were	constructed	or	an	existing	station	were	to	be	relocated.		Moreover,	the	

potential	for	development	is	influenced	by	factors	that	include	local	zoning,	market	forces,	adequate	

infrastructure	 and	 transportation	 access,	 and	 extent	 of	 existing	 development	 and	 availability	 of	

land	for	redevelopment/development.		Even	though	secondary	development	(or	redevelopment	in	

urban	areas	around	many	of	the	stations)	may	not	occur	if	passenger	rail	service	improvements	are	

implemented,	 it	 is	 anticipated	 that	 there	 is	 an	 increased	 potential	 for	 more	 indirect	 economic	

effects	 (increase	in	property	 values,	increased	business	sales,	and	even	increase	in	jobs)	 to	 occur	

with		improvements	in	passenger	rail	service.		
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 

Page 4-296 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Base Alternative

The	Base	Alternative	represents	the	baseline	condition	against	which	the	alternatives	are	measured	

and	 incorporates	 improvements	 that	 have	 already	 been	 programmed.	 	 The	 Base	 Alternative	 will	

maintain	weekday	service	frequencies	and	will	provide	a	program	of	eight	improvements	in	track	

and	station	infrastructure.		This	includes	signal	and	grade	crossing	improvements	and	Rensselaer	

Station	 fourth	 track	 improvements	 along	 66	 miles	 of	 Empire	 Corridor	 South,	 and	 21	 miles	 of	

additional	 track	 improvements	 in	 Albany,	 Schenectady,	 Syracuse,	 and	 Rochester,	 with	 station	

improvements	in	Schenectady,	Rochester,	and	Niagara	Falls.			

The	station	improvements	have	 the	greatest	potential	 to	increase	economic	benefits	 to	 these	 two	

downtown	 areas,	 although	 the	 track	 improvements	 proposed	 will	 benefit	 freight	 movements	

(thereby	 offering	 indirect	 economic	 benefits	 to	 the	 industries	 served)	 as	 well	 as	 passenger	 rail	

service.	 	 With	 the	 Base	 Alternative,	 the	 potential	 for	 secondary	 development	 is	 relatively	 low.		

However,	 of	 the	 proposed	 improvements,	 the	 relocation	 of	 the	 Niagara	 Falls	 Station	 from	 an	

industrial	 site	 outside	 the	 downtown	 area	 to	 the	 former	 custom	 house	 building	 in	 downtown	

Niagara	Falls	has	 the	greatest	potential	 to	improve	 the	vitality	of	 the	downtown	business	district.		

Upgrades	 to	 the	 Schenectady	 and	 Rochester	 Stations	 also	 has	 a	 greater	 potential	 to	 support	

businesses	in	downtown	Schenectady	and	Rochester	than	the	other	improvements	proposed	under	

the	Base	Alternative.			

However,	 this	 alternative	 has	 the	 lowest	 potential	 for	 secondary	 development	 and	 the	 ensuing	

environmental	impacts	(traffic,	land	use,	community,	wetlands,	parklands,	air	quality,	noise,	etc.)	of	

the	 alternatives	 under	 consideration,	 particularly	 since	 both	 are	 existing	 station	 sites,	 and	 the	

Schenectady	Station	will	not	be	relocated.		Moreover,	since	both	of	the	station	sites	are	located	in	

heavily	 urbanized	 areas,	 the	 potential	 for	 impacts	 to	 undeveloped	 lands,	 farmlands,	 and	 natural	

resources,	 such	 as	wetlands,	 endangered	 species	 habitats,	 and	 farmlands	impacts	 are	 also	lower.		

Any	secondary	development	in	these	urban	locations	is	likely	to	involve	redevelopment	of	existing	

developed	sites.		Although	secondary	development	or	redevelopment	and	changes	in	land	use	may	

not	 occur	 under	 the	 Base	Alternative,	 the	 Base	 Alternative	may	produce	more	indirect	 economic	

effects	 (increase	in	property	 values,	increased	business	sales,	increase	in	jobs)	 for	 the	downtown	

areas.			

Alternative 90A

With	 Alternative	 90A,	 Empire	 Service	 would	 provide	 increased	 frequency	 of	 service	 as	 well	 as	

improved	 travel	 times,	 with	 a	 program	 of	 20	 improvements	 in	 track,	 station,	 signalization,	 in	

addition	to	improvements	proposed	under	the	Base	Alternative	previously	described.		Alternative	

90A	would	include	15.4	miles	of	new	track	in	Manhattan,	at	the	Tappan	Zee	Bridge,	and	in	Putnam	

and	Dutchess	Counties;	signal	improvements	along	43	miles	south	of	and	including	Poughkeepsie,	

improvements	 to	 the	 Poughkeepsie	 Yard/Storage	 Facility;	 and	 rock	 slope	 stabilization	 along	 25	

miles	and	three	new	control	points	north	of	Poughkeepsie	and	south	of	Albany‐Rensselaer	Station.		

Alternative	 90A	 would	 also	 include	 station	 improvements	 at	 Rhinecliff	 Station,	 Hudson	 Station,	

Buffalo‐Depew	Station	and	replacement	 of	 the	Livingston	Avenue	Bridge.		Along	Empire	Corridor	

West/Niagara	 Branch,	 Alternative	 90A	 would	 include	 52	 miles	 of	 track	 improvements	 in	

Montgomery	 County	 (Amsterdam	 Station),	 Syracuse,	 Rochester,	 and	 along	 the	Niagara	 Branch	 as	

well	 as	 upgrades	 to	 interlockings/automatic	 block	 signals	 at	 three	 new	 control	 points.	 	 It	 is	

anticipated	 that	 work	 could	 be	 contained	 within	 the	 right‐of‐way,	 and	 no	 land	 acquisitions	 are	

anticipated.			
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

The station improvements have the greatest potential to increase economic benefits to these cities, 

although the track improvements proposed will benefit freight movements (thereby offering 

indirect economic benefits to the industries served) as well as passenger rail service. Secondary 

impacts would be similar to those described for the Base Alternative, with the highest potential for 

benefits and secondary development anticipated with new station buildings to be constructed at 

Amsterdam and Buffalo-Depew Stations. There may be more potential for secondary development 

in the City of Buffalo, as this station is more centrally located to business or industrial districts and 

is also a larger city. However, the Buffalo-Depew Station is located within an industrial area and 

physically isolated from nearby commercial activity. The existing Amsterdam Station is located on 

the western outskirts of the City of Amsterdam, and land use patterns include established 

residential neighborhoods. with limited commercial development or zones scattered in the 

surrounding area and somewhat removed from the existing station. If the new station buildings for 

Buffalo-Depew and Amsterdam are relocated closer to established commercial activity centers, 

there would be an increased potential for secondary development. The station building 

improvements at Schenectady, Rochester, and Niagara Falls would also occur under the Base 

Alternative, as described above.

However, similar to the Base Alternative, this alternative has relatively low potential for secondary 

development and the ensuing environmental impacts (traffic, land use, community, wetlands, 

parklands, air quality, noise, etc.), given the type and degree of development around the existing 

station sites and the nature and limited scope of the proposed improvements. Moreover, since two 

of the station sites are located in heavily urbanized areas, the potential for impacts to undeveloped 

lands, farmlands, and natural resources, such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, and 

farmlands impacts are also lower. Any secondary development in these urban locations is likely to 

involve redevelopment of existing developed sites. Although secondary development or 

redevelopment and changes in land use may not occur under the Alternative 90A, this alternative 

may produce greater indirect economic effects (increase in property values, increased business 

sales, increase in jobs) for the downtown areas served than the Base Alternative. 

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would match the improved frequency of service provided with Alternative 90A 

(and would include the 90A improvements) and would provide further reductions in travel time, 

with a dedicated third track and sections of fourth track provided between Schenectady and 

Buffalo. The third track would extend 273 miles, generally on the north side of the existing tracks, 

in the location of the former two-track rail bed. In addition, 39 miles of fourth track, in five 

locations, would also be added on the north side. The new tracks would be offset 15 feet from the 

existing railroad and from each other. Double track along five miles of the Niagara Branch is also 

proposed.

Alternative 90B would involve the same station improvements as the Base and 90A Alternatives, 

with station building improvements at Schenectady, Niagara Falls, Amsterdam, Rochester, and 

Buffalo-Depew Stations, as described in the previous sections. With the proposed improvements in 

passenger rail service, this alternative would have a greater potential than the Base/90A 

Alternatives to increase economic benefits to cities primarily at the station sites, although the track 

improvements proposed will benefit freight movements (thereby offering indirect economic 

benefits to the industries served) as well as passenger rail service. The highest potential for 

secondary development may occur at Niagara Falls, with relocation of the station, and major cities 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-297

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

in Schenectady, Rochester, and Buffalo where station improvements are proposed, as well as other 

urban centers with station sites. This effect may be more pronounced in the cities where express 

service will be provided: Niagara Falls, Buffalo-Exchange Street, Buffalo-Depew, Rochester, 

Syracuse, Albany-Rensselaer and New York City (Penn Station).

This alternative would have a somewhat greater potential for secondary development than the 

Base/90A Alternatives due to improved passenger rail service. However the potential for any 

environmental impacts (traffic, land use, community, wetlands, parklands, air quality, noise, etc.) is 

limited to some extent by the heavily urbanized areas around many of the existing stations, which 

would limit the potential for impacts to undeveloped lands, farmlands, and natural resources, such 

as wetlands, endangered species habitats, and farmlands impacts. Any secondary development in 

these urban locations is likely to involve redevelopment of existing developed sites. Although 

secondary development or redevelopment and changes in land use may not occur under 

Alternative 90B, this alternative may produce greater indirect economic effects (increase in 

property values, increased business sales, increase in jobs) for the downtown areas served than 

would the Base/90A Alternatives. 

Alternative 110

With Alternative 110, Empire Service would match the increased frequency of service for 

Alternative 90B and would provide further improvements in travel times, with 273 miles of 

exclusive third track between Schenectady and Buffalo. This track would be further offset 30 feet, 

and additional infrastructure improvements included, to accommodate higher speeds. Alternative 

110 would also add 59 miles of fourth track in six locations. In general, impacts would be similar to 

those described above under Alternative 90B.

Alternative 110 would involve the same station improvements as the Base and 90A Alternatives, 

with station building improvements at Schenectady, Niagara Falls, Amsterdam, Rochester, and 

Buffalo-Depew Stations, as described in the previous sections. With the added improvements in 

passenger rail service, this alternative would have a greater potential than the Base/90A/90B 

Alternatives to increase economic benefits to cities primarily at the station sites, although the track 

improvements proposed will benefit freight movements (thereby offering indirect economic 

benefits to the industries served) as well as passenger rail service. The highest potential for 

secondary development may occur at urban centers with station sites, given the availability of 

urban land to accommodate new development or redevelopment of existing developed sites. This 

effect may be more pronounced in the cities where express service will be provided: Niagara Falls, 

Buffalo-Exchange Street, Buffalo-Depew, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany-Rensselaer and New York 

City (Penn Station). However, if the factors are in place to support new development at less urban 

station sites (availability of land, zoning, infrastructure, market forces, etc.), there is a somewhat 

greater potential for larger changes in land use should redevelopment occur at more remotely 

located stations. 

This alternative would have a somewhat greater potential for secondary development than the 

Base/90A/90B Alternatives due to the additional improvements in passenger rail service. However 

the potential for any environmental impacts (traffic, land use, community, wetlands, parklands, air 

quality, noise, etc.) is limited to some extent by the heavily urbanized areas around many of the 

existing stations, which would limit the potential for impacts to undeveloped lands, farmlands, and 

natural resources, such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, and farmlands impacts. Any 

secondary development in these urban locations is likely to involve redevelopment of existing 

Page 4-298 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

developed sites. Although secondary development or redevelopment and changes in land use may 

not occur under Alternative 110, this alternative may produce more indirect economic effects 

(increase in property values, increased business sales, increase in jobs) for the downtown areas 

than would the Base/90A/90B Alternatives. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would maintain existing service on Empire Corridor West and would provide more 

frequent service (compared to the other alternatives) on exclusive, grade-separated tracks on new 

alignment in most areas between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. Alternative 125 would include 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch.

Alternative 125 would involve construction of a total of 236 miles of track on new alignment along 

three different segments: Rensselaer to Syracuse, Syracuse to Rochester, and Rochester to Buffalo. 

Alternative 125 also would include new right-of-way in most areas, but would merge back with the 

Empire Corridor over two 15- and 16-mile segments centered on Syracuse and Rochester, 

respectively. 

Alternative 125 would involve a new station building in Rochester, but bypasses the Amsterdam 

and Buffalo-Depew Stations, so no improvements are proposed at these stations (beyond track 

improvements), which would be rebuilt under Alternatives 90B/110. Alternative 125 would 

involve express service that would stop at Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo 

Exchange Street stations, while also maintaining existing Empire Corridor service. As with the Base 

Alternatives, station building improvements at Schenectady, Rochester, and Niagara Falls would 

still be proposed, as described in the previous sections. With the added improvements in passenger 

rail service, this alternative would have the greatest potential to increase economic benefits to 

cities primarily at the station sites, although the track improvements proposed will benefit freight 

movements (thereby offering indirect economic benefits to the industries served) as well as 

passenger rail service. The highest potential for secondary development may occur at urban 

centers with station sites, given the availability of urban land to accommodate new development or 

redevelopment of existing developed sites. However, if the factors are in place to support new 

development at less urban station sites (availability of land, zoning, infrastructure, market forces, 

etc.), there is a somewhat greater potential for larger changes in land use should redevelopment 

occur at more remotely located stations. 

Although the 125 Study Area involves new construction along 236 miles, no new stations would be 

constructed on the new alignment, so secondary development impacts along the new right-of-way 

are not anticipated. However, of the alternatives under consideration, this alternative would have 

the greatest potential for secondary development because of the improvements in passenger rail 

service and travel times/ridership. However, the potential for any environmental impacts (traffic, 

land use, community, wetlands, parklands, air quality, noise, etc.) is limited to some extent by the 

heavily urbanized areas around many of the existing stations. The urbanized character around the 

stations served by Alternative 125 would limit the potential for impacts to undeveloped lands, 

farmlands, and natural resources, such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, and farmlands 

impacts. Any secondary development in these urban locations is likely to involve redevelopment of 

existing developed sites. Although secondary development or redevelopment and changes in land 

use may not occur under Alternative 90B, this alternative may produce the greatest indirect 

economic effects (increase in property values, increased business sales, increase in jobs) for the 

downtown areas served. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-299

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

4.24.5. Potential Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation strategies will be considered during Tier 2 that may include consultation with local and 

regional planning officials regarding local plans and zoning and discussing status of implementation 

strategies to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD). In Tier 2, further research to be 

performed in the vicinity of station sites could include zoning and the extent of planning to support 

TOD in the vicinity of station sites. The final siting of stations, including the potential to relocate 

some stations to sites with more potential for positive secondary development impacts, could 

consider these factors to further economic development and consistency with regional and local 

plans.

4.24.6. Future Analysis

The Tier 2 analysis will further evaluate the potential for secondary development and cumulative 

impacts. The status of projects that could result in cumulative impacts will be reevaluated to assess 

cumulative impacts, and the final siting of station sites will consider local zoning and plans for 

Transit-Oriented Development. The existing land uses and zoning in the vicinity of station sites and 

consistency with Master Plans will be identified in the vicinity of existing and proposed stations. 

Regional and local planning officials will be consulted regarding station plans, and the secondary 

development potential of the program will be reevaluated in the context of current market forces 

and existing/proposed developments and land uses in the vicinity of the stations.

4.25. Construction

The potential construction effects of the program include interruptions in service, potential traffic 

impacts for bridgework, temporary dust emissions, temporary increases in noise, and disturbances 

to property and natural and water resources.

It is anticipated that, to the extent possible, work would be staged during night-time, weekends, or 

off-peak hours to minimize service outages and disruptions to the traveling public. Any 

interruptions in service will be closely coordinated with the affected transportation agencies and 

freight companies and users and the traveling public and advertised as appropriate.

Trackwork (replacement of ties, etc.) would largely be sited within the existing rail right-of-way 

using rail-mounted equipment, which should not involve large quantities of earthwork. In some 

cases, station construction, addition of additional third and fourth track rail embankments and 

maintenance access roads, bridgework, and construction of flyovers and elevated structures may 

involve earthwork and clearing. Operation of construction vehicles and equipment has the 

potential to create dust when earth moving or clearing is required. These vehicles and construction 

activities also have the potential to emit increased levels of noise that might disturb any adjoining 

sensitive land uses, such as residential neighborhoods. 

The construction of the program may require temporary use of adjoining parcels of land for staging 

and storage of construction equipment and materials, if the available right-of-way is not sufficient. 

The need for temporary construction easements and permanent easements on adjoining properties 

Page 4-300 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations Tier 1 Draft EIS

will be determined, and any required permits for work affecting public lands will be identified. 

Earth-disturbing construction adjacent to water resources and wetlands has the potential to 

temporarily disturb soils and create siltation in adjoining waterways, which could then indirectly 

affect aquatic habitats and water quality. Use of cofferdamming and silt curtains will be examined 

as part of the final design, and bridgework will need to consider sensitive times of year when 

construction may need to be avoided of minimized to avoid impacts on navigation and spawning of 

protected species. For work in affected waterways, these sensitive construction windows will be 

closely coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard and other regulatory and resource agencies with 

jurisdiction. 

Use of construction equipment in the vicinity of waterways, sensitive water supplies, and 

aquatic/wildlife habitats will include appropriate safeguards. For instance, spill prevention 

measures may include use of buffers around protected resources to minimize the possibility of 

contamination from accidental spills or incidents and appropriate restrictions on locating (or use of 

secondary containment for) storage of fuels and other potential contaminants. In protected 

habitats, worker training and education may be warranted to facilitate sightings and protection of 

rare species.

For work in the vicinity of parks, consultation would be performed with park officials for work that 

may disturb access to trails and canals regarding time-of-year and detours, if necessary. Similarly , 

work affecting agricultural farmfields and uses will be closely coordinated with the property 

owners to minimize the extent of impacts on agricultural operations and yields. 

Typical construction mitigation measures to be employed would include:

• Use of dust control measures, such as water sprays; 

• Cleaning of tires of construction trucks prior to leaving the construction site; 

• Limiting noisy activities near residential neighborhoods to daytime and weekday hours to the 

extent possible;

• Use of mufflers on construction vehicles;

• Use of stormwater controls and implementing either Erosion and Sediment Control Plans 

(disturbing less than an acre) or a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (for sites disturbing an 

acre or more of land); and

• Temporary and permanent construction BMPs, such as seed, mulch, embankment protectors, 

grade techniques, inlet protection, silt fences, development of a Spill Prevention Control Plan 

(SPCC), Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) and vehicle tracking prevention will be used 

as appropriate. 

Specific potential mitigation measures to be considered during construction are addressed under 

respective sections of this chapter, including surface waters, wetlands, and aquifers. 

During Tier 2, the duration of construction will be better defined, and the extent of temporary 

construction impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified During the final 

design phases for improvement projects, the sequence and extent of construction will be identified, 

and staging plans developed.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 4-301

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 4-302 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

5. Financial Capacity

5.1. Introduction

Transportation infrastructure and services are typically supported by a combination of capital and 

operating funding from various sources. These funding sources may have conditions and 

restrictions as to how they may be applied to New York’s HSIPR program, and these restrictions can 

have significant implications for the affordability and the feasibility of the High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Program’s alternatives. Matching the particular requirements and restrictions among 

federal, state, municipal and private funding sources with the costs of each alternative helps 

determine the time frame over which the alternative could be implemented.

In general, public transportation systems are built and equipped using capital funding from various 

sources, and are operated day-to-day using operating funds. These two categories of funding – and 

the sources for these funds – are described in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.

Chapter 5 describes the costs, ridership and ticket revenues, subsidy requirements, and sources of 

funding support that are available to advance the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. After 

the selection of a preferred alternative, a Service Development Plan will be developed. It will 

include detailed operating plans as well as a capital program, including costs and projected fiscal 

construction years. This chapter presents information that will be considered and incorporated 

into the Service Development Plan. Appendix B presents additional information on how the 

ridership forecasts were developed, and Appendix F presents additional information on how cost 

estimates were developed. 

5.2. Cost and Revenue Methodology

The capital and operating costs and operating revenues anticipated for each alternative are based 

upon uniform ridership forecasting and costing methodologies, to ensure consistency. Based on 

proposed operating plans (service frequency and trip time) for each alternative, the ridership was 

forecast and operating costs generated. Track alignments, signal system configuration, number and 

length of passing sidings, and rolling stock requirements were defined in sufficient detail for a Tier 

1 analysis to permit reasonable capital construction cost estimates, and to establish the feasibility 

of proposed train operating plans, service frequency, stopping patterns and express/local/regional 

service overlays.

Standard practice for quantifying and comparing costs of different investment programs that 

transpire over different time frames is to schedule all the future improvements based on the likely 

time of their implementation and then inflate the current cost of each element to its anticipated 

implementation year. These future costs are then discounted back to the target comparison year 

using net present value analysis techniques so that they are comparable in constant-dollar terms. 

For example, if a locomotive is to be purchased in 2020, but the analysis target comparison year is 

2015, the current (2012) cost of a locomotive would be inflated to 2020, and the resulting value 

then discounted back to 2015 using an approved discount rate. Discount rates address a 

combination of inflation and the “opportunity cost” of using the funding for the subject project 

rather than for some other purpose (which might give greater or lesser returns). Discount rates 

typically range between 6 percent and 10 percent, depending on a wide variety of factors. 

Following this procedure enables the comparison in a specific analysis year (in the above case, 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-1

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

2015) of various future investments with varying implementation dates. Projected investments of 

the Empire Corridor Program would span from 2015 to 2035.

For a Tier 1 investigation, the cost and timing for the specific investments are estimated in general 

terms. Therefore, the Tier 1 analysis is focused on the year 2015 as the point for comparison across 

alternatives. The present (2011) costs of elements, such as track, coaches, locomotives, bridge 

construction, etc., are inflated to 2015 costs at a uniform inflation rate of 3.5 percent. While the 

exact costs or future year of implementation are not precisely known for each alternative, the 

common treatment of all cost elements across all categories, as if occurring in 2015, allows 

reasonable comparisons among alternatives.

5.2.1. Capital Cost Estimating Methodology

Capital cost estimates for the alternatives used industry standards for all major components. 

Infrastructure capital costs were determined on a unit basis. Construction costs for each 

alternative were derived by multiplying the quantity of each major item by the unit cost for that 

item, based on standard values or the most recent costs, with appropriate regional adjustments 

applied as necessary. Land costs were developed for urban, suburban and rural property. Train 

and maintenance staffing costs were based on current Amtrak values, projected to the target 

analysis year. Use of these common factors allows meaningful comparisons among the alternatives 

in terms of their likely future ridership potential and their capital and operating costs and revenues.

Rolling Stock

The method by which costs for rolling stock were developed is described in Appendix F. In brief, 

equipment costs are a function of the operating plan intended for each alternative, that is, the 

number of train sets to be operated along the route, and the number of locomotives and passenger 

coaches to be needed for each alternative, including spare trains to substitute for trains scheduled 

for maintenance.

Track and Infrastructure

Track and signal system installation costs were based on standard unit values used throughout the 

railroad industry. Track installation costs are typically recognized on a cost-per-mile basis. 

Infrastructure costs, for bridges, culverts, grade separations, and retaining walls, involved gross 

cost estimates based on current experience. Bridge costs were estimated based on length of span 

and width, culvert costs were estimated based on diameter and length under the ROW, and 

retaining wall costs were estimated based on volume of concrete required.

Overhead Catenary Infrastructure

For overhead catenary system, a per-mile installation cost was used. Catenary system costs also 

include electric power source, substations on a one per-twenty-five-mile unit of length of the 

corridor, and associated support equipment."

Page 5-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Signals

Since signal systems must be linked via cable along the ROW to communicate with trains and the 

various interlockings and crossovers, a per-mile installation cost was used. Signal system costs 

include electric power for signals, control houses, switches, and associated support equipment such 

as snow melters, and installation.

Maintenance Facilities

Maintenance and repair shops were estimated on a cost-per-square-foot basis for industrial or 

commercial buildings (depending upon scale), adjusted for the additional costs for structural 

support sufficient to house heavy locomotives, and for the cost of typical rail maintenance 

equipment (cranes, tables, lifts, etc.) that must be used to fit out such facilities.

Stations

Station costs were estimated on the basis of approximate square footage, at typical commercial 

construction cost values, adjusted regionally. At this Tier 1 level of analysis, all alternatives were 

assumed to require the same station improvements, carrying identical costs for this element.

Property Acquisition

Both Alternatives 110 and 125 would involve more substantial property acquisitions, which would 

be greatest for Alternative 125.193 (Alternative 90B also involves property acquisition on a much 

reduced scale than what is required for the additional track and right-of-way to be constructed as 

part of these higher speed alternatives.) Alternative 110 would require additional land to augment 

the existing ROW on the south side for an extra track. Alternative 125 would require property 

acquisition for a new ROW at some distance from the existing alignment. 

Since the exact position and routing of additional trackage necessary to improve curves to allow 

higher speed is not yet known for either alternative, it was difficult to estimate property acquisition 

costs for these higher speed alternatives. Property acquisition was therefore estimated based on 

apparent need to modify curves, add parallel main-line or passing tracks, install additional grade 

separations to meet safety requirements, or expand yards. Three indices of cost were then applied: 

prime city, suburban, and rural. Costs for each index were based on recent property values along 

the corridor. No correction was made for inflation to 2015, as the current real estate market cannot 

be reliably predicted on the basis of standard inflation drivers. 

Upon completion of Tier 1, and as the program moves into the next phase of work, more precise 

information will be developed, associated with the specific track, bridge, yard, station, and signal 

system construction projects. Additionally, a Service Development Plan will be developed for the 

preferred alternative. The Service Development Plan will include detailed operating plans, and 

increasingly precise capital construction costs and project schedules from which annual cash 

requirements for both capital and operating funds can be determined.

As set forth in the Agreements in Appendix J between CSXT and NYSDOT, CSXT is entitled to 

compensation for the use, acquisition, or diminishment in value of its property resulting from any 

193/ Alternative 90 requires some property, but on a smaller scale than either of the higher speed alignments.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-3

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

project advanced as a result of the EIS. The development of the cost of alternatives must and will 

include the recognition of this principle, although the negotiation of the actual value of any 

compensation to CSXT is not part of this Tier 1 EIS, but will be developed if and when necessary 

during detailed analysis (Tier 2).

5.2.2. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Estimating

Methodology

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for Empire Corridor high speed intercity rail services were 

based on unit costs for a variety of elements including but not limited to:

• Number of train crews needed to operate the prescribed number of trains – based on typical, 

industry standards;

• The number and size of train cleaning crews – based on hourly pay rate plus fringe and 

overhead costs;

• Track and signal system maintenance costs – based on annualized cost/track-mile, an industry 

standard, adjusted by region;

• Propulsion costs – based on locomotive mileage standards (gallons/mile or gallons/hour) at 

pre-determined speeds, typical cost of fuel, projected to the target analysis year, based on 

accepted industry methods;

• Janitorial and landscaping services – estimate of annual contract values and number of 

locations;

• Dispatching functions for trains, personnel, equipment.

By applying industry standard costs for labor hours, fuels, maintenance tools and supplies, rents, 

and general custodial and cleaning contracts, an approximate operating cost could be estimated for 

each alternative. These costs were compared among the alternatives to better understand how the 

different elements of each alternative affect annual operating costs.

Estimates of future annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the proposed passenger rail 

system improvements and for the existing system were based on Amtrak accounting conventions, 

developed in response to the state-supported service provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Costs were initially derived for 2014, which is the first year 

for which PRIIA-mandated state operating cost payments are required (see Appendix F). These 

costs were then increased to account for the effects of inflation between 2014 and 2015, to permit 

their comparison with 2015 forecast revenues, and the derivation of 2015 subsidies for the 

alternatives. Annual operating expenses for the alternatives were based on the forecast of 

scheduled trains, train miles operated and per-train-mile O&M costs (for rolling stock), and pertrack-mile infrastructure maintenance costs, acknowledging the anticipated increased costs for 

track and bridge maintenance due to greater wear from higher-speed operation. The 

methodologies by which operating costs were derived for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor 

Program alternatives are detailed in Appendix F. 

For all Build Alternatives except for Alternative 125, detailed operating plans require six additional 

train sets, each containing one diesel locomotive and five passenger coaches (including a 20 percent 

Page 5-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

spare factor). Alternative 125 would involve electrification of the ROW west of Albany up to a 

proposed new Buffalo station, and its operating plan calls for 17 additional train sets, each 

containing one dual mode locomotive and five coaches (including a 20 percent spare factor). Each 

alternative involves an operating schedule necessary to permit sufficient service to attract the 

forecast ridership, as described in Chapter 3. The proposed train schedules were proposed based 

on the following:

• The number of trains that could be accommodated on the corridor under the Base (No Action) 

Alternative and proposed higher-speed alternatives without creating unacceptable conflicts 

with freight operations;

• A level of service sufficient to produce the forecast ridership, while also achieving the MAS and 

required average speed for each alternative.

5.2.3. Revenue Estimating Methodology

Annual ticket revenues are estimated based on ridership between station pairs, multiplied by the 

current Amtrak fare for travel between those pairs, assigned to the 2035 target year. This approach 

is consistent with the computation of the O&M costs for each alternative, which are also presented 

in near-current (2015) dollars. 

5.2.4. Deficit/Subsidy Estimating Methodology

Few public transportation services earn enough money in fare and non-fare revenue to cover their 

entire annual O&M cost. Most transportation services require subsidy from government to balance 

their annual operating budgets. The operating deficits projected in this Tier 1 EIS are simply the 

difference between the estimated O&M costs and the estimated ticket revenues. Although ticket 

revenues are normally supplemented by lease, concession, rent, and advertising revenues (“nonticket” revenues), these additional revenue streams are generally small compared with ticket 

revenues paid by passengers; therefore, ticket revenues alone are sufficient to give a reasonable 

picture of the scale of subsidy likely required for each alternative. 

At the Tier 1 level of analysis, where increased train speed and shorter travel times would be the 

project benefits resulting in increased ridership, other factors that might influence travelers’ mode 

choices – higher or lower gasoline prices, tolls, air fares, bus fares, etc. – were held constant at their 

2015 values and applied to the 2035 analysis year. By holding all 2015 cost relationships constant, 

the effect of speed and time on ridership can be observed alone, independent of any other factors.

5.3. Capital Funding Needs, Requirements and Sources

In the public transportation sector, where the majority of costs are funded by federal, state, and 

local governments, capital funding is defined as sources provided to agencies for the purchase of 

assets with significant useful life, generally greater than five years. Assets, such as buildings, rail 

yards and track, signal systems, bridges and culverts, real property, rolling stock, and long-life 

maintenance equipment (cranes, drop tables, turntables, wheel true installations, fork lifts, etc.), are 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-5

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

generally considered to have useful lives over five years, and are therefore purchased with capital 

funds.

As the costs of rail infrastructure and equipment are substantial, major capital improvements are 

undertaken by the host Class 1 railroads, federal agencies, states, and major municipalities (and 

occasionally other private sector participants, typically for location-specific improvements). 

Federal capital grants for passenger rail systems typically require a local match of a minimum of 10 

percent to 20 percent of the value of the purchase, and sometimes more, with the amount 

depending upon the apparent public benefit of the project and other factors. To qualify for federal 

capital funding, and in accordance with federal grant requirements, a state or municipal sponsor –

NYSDOT or the individual municipalities along the route in the case of the High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Program – must contribute capital funds as well, in partnership with the federal agency 

funding the improvement.

 

For the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, capital funds would be provided primarily by 

FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and NYSDOT. Where station upgrades are 

incorporated into the project, municipal governments and regional transportation authorities 

would provide capital funds, as well. Capital funds would be used for the following:

• Purchase of property and equipment, such as locomotives and passenger coaches, or “rolling 

stock;”

• Upgrade and construction of facilities, such as stations, maintenance facilities at rail yards, rail 

yard expansions;

• Improvement or expansion of railway infrastructure, such as track, signals, switches, bridge 

structures;

• Acquisition of additional ROW, as required to add tracks or expand yards, or to straighten 

curves to allow higher speed operation; and

• Repayment of debt service and/or lease payments on long-term equipment purchases or 

construction costs, where private sector investors have participated on a lease or debt basis. 

(Note that lease payments used to retire debt for rail construction or rolling stock are typically 

funded as capital costs during the lease term.)

5.3.1. The Capital Plan

The primary source of high-speed rail funding is anticipated to be FRA, using PRIIA and successor 

authorizations. For projects to be eligible for FRA funds, they must be advanced through the grant 

process, as described in Section 5.3.2. Projects are included in the New York State Rail Plan, which 

outlines all of the state’s rail system needs for both passenger and freight service. NYSDOT also 

includes rail projects on its Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for 

informational purposes. The STIP is a four-year forecast of capital needs across all federally-funded 

transportation services. The STIP is updated by NYSDOT every two years and projects five years 

ahead as improvements from prior year plans are completed and new elements are identified for 

future implementation. Where additional funding may be sought from FTA or other federal grant 

programs, a project must be represented in the STIP.

Page 5-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

5.3.2. Capital Funding Programs

The federal government has enacted laws and provided grant funding opportunities that have 

enabled states to invest in passenger rail service, particularly higher-speed operations. The Empire 

Corridor was initially designated for investment by U.S. DOT in the 1990s:

• High-Speed Rail Corridor Designations: Section 1010 of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240) directed the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation to designate not more than five “high-speed” corridors where trains operating 

at speeds of 90 mph could be reasonably expected. Section 1103(c) of the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21, P.L. 105-178) directed the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation to designate six additional corridors named in the law or based on criteria 

described in the law, for a total of 11 corridors.

• Empire Corridor Designation: The 463-mile Empire Corridor from New York City-to-Albanyto-Buffalo was designated by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation as a High-Speed Rail Corridor 

on October 20, 1992.

Federal Capital Funding Programs

The federal funding programs supporting intercity/high-speed passenger rail, and associated 

commuter rail projects are summarized below:

• FY 2008 Appropriations Act: Capital Assistance to States – Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service: The FY 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Appropriations Act (P.L. 

110-161) established a new pilot program for joint federal-state intercity passenger rail capital 

investment. Under this program, $30 million in federal funding was made available to states on 

a competitive basis to fund up to 50 percent of the capital cost of improving intercity passenger 

rail service. Up to 10 percent of the $30 million was available for rail corridor planning grants.

• Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008: PRIIA (P.L. 110-432) authorized 

a high-speed grant program for FY 2009 through FY 2013 to improve intercity passenger rail 

service, operations, and facilities. PRIIA also directed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to 

develop a long-range national rail plan that is consistent with approved state rail plans and the 

rail needs of the nation. This directive resulted in the publication of the Preliminary National 

Rail Plan in October, 2009. PRIIA established three new competitive grant programs for 

funding intercity rail capital improvements:

o Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital Assistance Program: Section 301 of 

PRIIA established grants for capital improvements to benefit all types of intercity 

passenger rail service, including the capital costs of facilities, infrastructure, and 

equipment necessary to provide or improve intercity passenger rail transportation. 

Eligible applicants included states (including the District of Columbia), groups of states, 

interstate compacts, and public intercity passenger rail agencies.

o High-Speed Rail Corridor Development: Similar to Section 301, Section 501 of PRIIA 

restricted eligibility for grants to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) -

designated high-speed rail corridors (including the Empire Corridor). Grants could be 

used for acquiring, constructing, or improving rail structures and equipment. High-speed 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-7

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

rail was defined as passenger rail services that may reasonably be expected to reach 

speeds of at least 110 mph. Section 501 broadened Section 301 to include Amtrak as well.

o Congestion Grants: Section 302 of PRIIA authorized grants to states or to Amtrak (in 

cooperation with states) for facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for high-priority rail 

corridor projects to reduce congestion or facilitate ridership growth in intercity rail 

passenger transportation.

• FY 2008 Appropriations Act: Capital Assistance to States – Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service: The FY 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Appropriations Act (P.L. 

110-161) established a new pilot program for joint federal-state intercity passenger rail capital 

investment. Under this program, $30 million in federal funding was made available to states on 

a competitive basis to fund up to 50 percent of the capital cost of improving intercity passenger 

rail service. Up to 10 percent of the $30 million was available for rail corridor planning grants.

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), enacted on February 17, 2009, appropriated a 

total of $787 billion, including $8 billion specifically for the grant programs established by 

PRIIA and $1.3 billion for Amtrak capital grants. ARRA sought from states “shovel ready” 

transportation projects, among them programs and projects to advance high-speed rail. The 

appropriation references the authorities included in Sections 301, 302, and 501 of PRIIA, but 

states that the federal share of costs may be up to 100 percent.

• A Vision for High-Speed Rail: On April 16, 2009, the President announced a new vision for 

developing high-speed rail in America to develop a national network of high-speed rail 

corridors in collaboration with states, railroads, and other key stakeholders. The U.S. DOT 

issued a High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan in April, 2009. On June 23, 2009, the FRA issued interim 

program guidance (74 CFR 29900) establishing the selection process, priorities, and evaluation 

criteria for grants made under financial assistance appropriated under ARRA: approximately 

$1.9 million in unobligated FY 2008 U.S. DOT appropriations (P.L. 110-161) funding and $90 

million for intercity passenger rail grants in the FY 2009 U.S. DOT appropriations (P.L. 111-8) 

funding. FRA combined the three PRIIA grant programs into the HSIPR Program.

o State of New York HSIPR Awards: On January 28, 2010, the first grant selections for the 

HSIPR program were announced. The State of New York has successfully competed for a 

total of $151 million in ARRA high-speed rail funding.

• FY 2009 U.S. DOT Appropriations Act: An additional $90 million was appropriated as part of 

the FY 2009 U.S. DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), similar to the FY 2008 Capital Assistance 

to states’ grants. Following awards made by U.S. DOT under the solicitation issued in June 

2009, $65 million of the original $90 million of FY 2009 Appropriations Act funds remained 

unused. On April 1, 2010, U.S. DOT issued notice of funding availability for these FY 2009 U.S. 

DOT Appropriations Act funds, to be used for construction projects with a 50 percent nonfederal match.

• FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act: Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (PL 111-117)

appropriated a total of $2.5 billion for the HSIPR program. Of that amount, $50 million was 

made available by the U.S. DOT for planning projects, including multi-state proposals, with a 20 

percent non-federal match. In June 2010, the U.S. DOT announced funding availability of $2.37 

billion in FY 2010 appropriations funding for final design/construction and/or preliminary 

Page 5-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

engineering/NEPA projects for individual projects or corridor programs with a 20 percent nonfederal match. Remaining FY 2010 U.S. DOT appropriations were allocated to the HSIPR 

program for administration and research.

o State of New York Awards: The State of New York successfully competed for $28.5 million 

in FY 2010 transportation appropriations funds.

• Redistribution of ARRA Funds: On December 9, 2010, the U.S. DOT announced a 

redistribution of some ARRA funds to other corridors after the incoming governors of 

Wisconsin and Ohio indicated that they would not move forward with $703 million designated 

for Wisconsin and $400 million designated for Ohio high-speed rail projects. In 2011, Florida 

cancelled its high-speed rail project, and approximately $2.3 billion was redistributed among 

New York and other states; New York State received an additional $354.4 million, plus $7.3 

million in supporting funding. Thus, from all sources, New York has received $558 million in 

federal funds and $110 million in state funding for New York State passenger rail, including 

projects on the Empire Corridor.

President Obama’s proposed budget for FY 2014 includes $6.4 billion to support passenger and 

freight rail projects across the country, under a new coordinated program called the National HighPerformance Rail System (NHPRS). Over the next five years, the President’s total request for the 

NHPRS is $40 billion, of which $13 billion would support existing services, and $27 billion would be 

invested in improving and enhancing the Nation’s rail network.

State Capital Funding Programs

Section 14-d of the New York State Transportation Law authorizes the Commissioner to enter into 

contracts for the purpose of maintaining and improving rail transportation service. New York State 

has participated in capital funding for intercity rail services through a number of grant and bond 

programs, as follows:

• Rail Service Preservation Program: This $100 million, multi-year freight and passenger rail 

program was established in FY 2005-06 by the State Legislature, with portions of the funding 

being appropriated on an annual basis; some of these funds have been made available.

• Transportation Capital Bonds: New York State voters approved a Rebuild and Renew New 

York Transportation Bond Act of 2005, providing $2.9 billion for transportation funding, of 

which $27 million was allocated each year for rail and port projects. The Empire Corridor work 

is supported in part with a portion of these bond funds.

The New York State FY 2012 budget includes $26.6 million for passenger and freight rail projects. 

Of this total, $16.6 million will be used to subsidize Amtrak services, leaving $10 million to be 

divided between freight rail and high-speed passenger rail improvements. In addition, the 

Legislature and Governor agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will direct 

NYSDOT to develop a two-year capital plan for FY 2013 and FY 2014. The MOU defines a program 

of infrastructure capital projects covering all modes under NYSDOT jurisdiction, at a level $100 

million over the levels originally proposed in the Governor’s 2012-13 Executive Budget. Rail freight 

projects will be eligible for funding under a second round of Regional Economic Council Program 

funding.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-9

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

5.3.3. Program Capital Funding Financial Roles

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

FRA is charged with promulgating and enforcing rail safety regulations, administering railroad 

assistance programs, and conducting research and development in support of improved railroad 

safety and national rail transportation policy. More recently, in addition to its responsibility for 

regulating rail operating protocols, FRA has received Congressional authorization and funding to 

distribute funds in support of high-speed passenger and freight rail operations. In this capacity, 

FRA is responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with PRIIA, which provides the 

regulatory framework by which this funding is to be distributed to states and railroad operators.

With HSIPR, FRA established a sequence of activities that facilitates the evaluation of various highspeed rail proposals across the nation. The first level of effort – Tier 1 – requires the identification 

and conceptualization of alternatives for implementing high-speed rail improvements in a defined 

corridor, the creation of a practical framework for evaluation and comparison among these 

alternatives, and the selection of a preferred alternative to be advanced for detailed analysis. The 

next phase (Tier 2) requires that applicants develop details about the specific project elements 

proposed for investment, such as bridges, new track segments, grade separations, new stations, etc., 

and completion of detailed environmental review, to ensure that individual investments will not 

have unacceptable impacts. Upon receipt of NEPA clearance via Records of Decision (RODs), 

Categorical Exclusions (CEs), or Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), and completion of 

preliminary engineering, these individual elements become eligible for FRA funding for final design, 

property acquisition, and construction. 

NYSDOT is following the HSIPR process for this High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, and this 

Tier 1 Draft EIS in part satisfies FRA’s procedural requirements for service development programs 

and corridor investment plans. 

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)

NYSDOT is responsible for coordinating and developing comprehensive transportation policy for 

the state; coordinating and assisting in the development and operation of transportation facilities 

and services for highways, railroads, mass transit systems, ports, waterways and aviation facilities; 

and formulating and maintaining a long-range, comprehensive statewide master plan for the 

balanced development of public and private commuter and general transportation facilities.

NYSDOT also administers a public safety program for railroads and motor carriers engaged in 

intrastate commerce; and provides oversight in matters relative to the safe operation of bus lines, 

commuter railroads and subway systems that are publicly subsidized.

Section 14-d(2)(d) of the State Transportation law authorizes the Commissioner to “utilize federal 

monies” to improve rail transportation service or rail transportation facilities. NYSDOT can also 

spend non-federal funds which are appropriated to the agency for this service and facilities. 

Pursuant to Section 209 of PRIIA, the states in which Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail 

services for the benefit of the states, must work with Amtrak to establish a basis for allocating both 

direct and a portion of general operating and maintenance costs to each state in proportion to the 

service Amtrak provides. Effective April 2012, this element of PRIIA obligates NYSDOT to budget 

for and subsidize some portions of the Empire Service that were heretofore paid by Amtrak 

Page 5-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

directly. Conversely, this regulation may vary the amount that NYSDOT has been paying Amtrak to 

operate the Empire Service, based on an allocation formula selected and implemented by the 

Surface Transportation Board.

Amtrak

As the passenger rail service provider and the owner of many of the stations on the Empire 

Corridor, Amtrak may contribute financially to high-speed passenger rail operations. Participation 

could involve providing train service; covering operating deficits; participating in funding capital 

improvements; or providing construction, maintenance, or dispatching resources along the ROW. 

This participation could be in part a function of Amtrak’s annual budget and past practices 

regarding cost sharing, property and operating agreements with NYSDOT and CSXT. Future cost 

sharing arrangements would be governed by Section 209 of PRIIA, as previously discussed. 

CSX Transportation, Inc.

CSXT, as the host railroad, owns 85 percent of the 463-mile Empire Corridor ROW from 

Poughkeepsie to Buffalo and Niagara Falls. Where CSXT owns the ROW, the company would, 

through its labor agreements, be involved in program construction and construction oversight. 

However, for the section of railroad from Poughkeepsie to Hoffmans, where Amtrak has entered 

into a lease agreement with CSXT, Amtrak, and NYSDOT will be responsible for program 

construction and oversight. 

CSXT would be involved in the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program as necessary to ensure 

that construction projects along that portion of the corridor over which it operates would be 

implemented without adverse effects on its freight operations. CSXT is also a member of the 

program steering committee, the Empire Project Advisory Committee (EPAC) and, in that capacity, 

is providing technical and operational input and reviewing analyses and findings to ensure that its 

operating needs are addressed.

Metro-North Railroad

Metro-North, the host railroad and owner of the 61-mile Empire Corridor South segment between 

Spuyten Duyvil and a point just beyond Poughkeepsie station, would be involved in the High Speed 

Rail Empire Corridor Program as necessary to ensure that construction projects located along that 

portion of the corridor over which it operates would be implemented without adverse effects on its 

daily commuter rail services. Metro-North also could participate in funding capital improvements 

along its section of the corridor. Where Metro-North is responsible for the ROW, it would, through 

its labor agreements, be involved in program construction and construction oversight. Metro-North 

is also a member of the EPAC and, in that capacity, is providing technical and operational input and 

reviewing findings to ensure that its operating needs are addressed. Finally, it is likely that along 

portions of the Empire Corridor South over which it operates, Metro-North will participate in 

specific improvements that were a product of the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation 

Plan.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

Regional Transportation Authorities and Municipalities

Transportation funding and services are frequently coordinated at the sub-regional and municipal 

level by regional transportation authorities (RTAs). The RTAs are active partners in project studies, 

advocacy and implementation, and frequently partner with NYSDOT on projects that will affect 

their jurisdictions. For the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, the following RTAs are 

involved:

• Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (Niagara Falls & Buffalo),

• Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority,

• Central New York Regional Transportation Authority,

• Capital District Transportation Authority.

These organizations could be involved in capital funding for station upgrades and/or parking 

improvements at stations. As federal funds provided to states and municipalities for rail system 

improvements are likely to require local match, in addition to state matching funds, some of the 

match could be provided by the state, municipality, or RTA.

Private/Public Partnerships

Private/public partnerships are often employed to gain coordinated benefits for complex and costly 

transportation projects. Private sector financing is often used for those elements of a project which 

are likely to generate a defined revenue stream that can be dedicated to debt repayment. In the 

case of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, private sector participation could involve 

station rehabilitation or replacement, where food concessions and rental payments from tenants 

create a revenue stream for debt repayment. There are also provisions within the tax law that 

permit the acceleration of depreciation on hard assets – in this case, locomotives and coaches –

such that private financing may be available to acquire the rolling stock and lease it to the 

operator/owner (whether that be NYSDOT or Amtrak), where the lease payments, combined with 

the tax advantage, provide the profit necessary to justify the initial private sector involvement.

5.4. Operations and Maintenance Funding Requirements and 

Sources

Operating funds are used to pay the day-to-day costs of operating a transportation service. Labor 

costs include salaries, plus benefits. Fuel and utility costs cover vehicle propulsion, either 

combustion fuels or electric power, and heating, lighting, air conditioning, phones, and data 

network fees. Custodial and janitorial fees include cleaners, custodians, trash removal, recycling 

apparatus and hauling agreements, rent, license and permit renewal fees (except where these are 

incurred in support of a capital project, on a one-time basis), gardeners and landscapers, and 

professional services (legal, accounting, etc.). Repair costs include the costs for facility and 

equipment upkeep and minor component replacement. Major component campaigns, as in the 

replacement of brakes across an entire fleet on a programmed basis, are typically funded out of 

capital sources.

As previously indicated in Section 5.2.2, operating costs are generally covered by a combination of 

ticket revenue and other non-ticket revenue sources. By comparing the operating costs with the 

annual anticipated revenues from both ticket and non-ticket revenues, the annual operating 

Page 5-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

subsidy that the service will require is derived. These operating subsidies are typically provided by 

state or municipal governments.

Most public transportation in the U.S. requires subsidy; ticket revenues are rarely sufficient to 

cover the full cost of the service. Metro-North receives operating subsidies from the New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). In New York, Amtrak receives operating subsidies 

from the U.S. DOT and NYSDOT. Except for payments to Amtrak, the federal government 

terminated its operating subsidy program in the 1970s.

Operating subsidies are generally likely to be available for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor 

Program as follows:

• Federal Operating Assistance: Amtrak receives federal operating funds. Following 

implementation of PRIIA Section 209 on October 1, 2013, however, use of these funds will be 

limited to the Northeast Corridor and long distance services. The Lake Shore Limited, which 

operates over the corridor en route to Chicago, will receive continuing federal operating 

support. The balance of the corridor operating subsidies will need to derive from state and 

local sources.

• State Operating Assistance: NYSDOT works collaboratively with Amtrak on a number of 

projects. NYSDOT has led the effort to transform the 94-mile-long Hudson Line from 

Schenectady to Poughkeepsie, currently a CSXT-freight controlled line, to an Amtrak-controlled 

line. Additionally, NYSDOT has entered into a long-term agreement with Amtrak on further 

developing the Hudson Line for passenger rail use, providing operating subsidies and other 

funding when necessary and available, thus ensuring Amtrak’s continuing control over 

maintenance, operations, and dispatching.

• Section 209 of PRIIA establishes that Amtrak’s operating losses be covered through a 

combination of ticket revenue and state support. Historically, New York State has provided 

support to the Adirondack Service, and with the implementation of PRIIA 209, NYSDOT will 

provide financial support to the Empire Service, effective October 1, 2013. Although this new 

law creates new funding responsibilities for NYSDOT, it represents an opportunity for the state 

to have even greater control over the Amtrak service. Through the Hudson Line lease and the 

implementation of PRIIA 209, NYSDOT and Amtrak have developed a strong collaborative 

relationship that will be strengthened with the implementation of any of the Build Alternatives.

• Regional Transportation Authorities or Municipal Operating Assistance: Some costs 

associated with operation of stations or parking areas at stations could be assumed by 

municipalities or RTAs, as previously discussed in Section 5.3.3.

5.5. Financial Performance of Alternatives

Tier 1 concept level design and operations of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

alternatives required the consideration of several operating scenarios and associated capital 

improvements. The goal of each scenario was to minimize passenger and freight train schedule 

conflicts, address critical congestion and delay locations, and sequence investments to yield 

continual improvement in corridor train service without unacceptably interfering with existing 

service. These operating scenarios considered the following:

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

• Upgrade tracks, signals, switch and interlockings, and communication systems to gain speed 

and reliability;

• Provide sufficient additional track to segregate to the greatest degree practical passenger from 

freight services; and

• Reduce the number of at-grade crossings or provide controls to restrict vehicle interference 

with train operations and satisfy FRA safety requirements associated with higher-speed train 

operation.

For Alternative 90A, the investment primarily would involve improving existing track and signal 

systems to gain speed and reliability. For Alternatives 90B, 110 and 125, the reduction in conflicts 

between freight and passenger trains would be achieved through the construction of longer passing 

sidings and/or new dedicated passenger track, allowing one train to bypass the other without delay 

to either.

While Empire Corridor South currently experiences relatively few conflicts between passenger and 

freight services, Empire Corridor West has significant freight and passenger train route sharing, 

with concomitant impacts on passenger service speed and reliability. For the western segment, 

Alternatives 90B, 110, and 125 would achieve greater or total separation of freight trains and 

passenger trains by using a new dedicated passenger track in the existing corridor (Alternatives 

90B and 110) or by purchasing and constructing an entirely new, straighter and flatter, fully 

electrified ROW (Alternative 125). The Base Alternative and Alternative 90A would involve 

additional passing sidings and switches to permit passenger trains to pass freight trains, but would 

not involve an entirely new, segregated high-speed passenger rail track parallel to the existing 

mixed freight and passenger service tracks now shared by both operations. South of Albany, the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program would modify existing tracks, eliminate minor conflicts 

through some track improvements and better signaling, and construct other upgrades to improve 

already good (110 mph) speed performance between New York and Albany. In its entirety, the 

Empire Corridor would realize the following improvements:

• South of Albany, create track connections, modify interlockings, and make additional 

operational improvements that would result in segments of track where freight and passenger 

train conflicts would be better managed without slowing passenger service;

• West of Albany, eliminate selected grade crossings to enable higher speeds while meeting FRA 

safety requirements;

• West of Albany, add double track segments (including property acquisition to permit expanded 

right-of-way) and some selected “fourth track” passing sidings to eliminate freight and 

passenger train conflicts; and

• Over the entire route, schedule the added, higher-speed services to avoid conflicts with freight 

operations.

The various improvements proposed under each alternative would impose very different capital 

costs, ranging from $290 million for the Base Alternative to $14.71 billion for Alternative 125. 

Exhibit 5-1 shows these values graphically. 

Page 5-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 5-1—Capital Costs

5.5.1. Capacity of Empire Corridor Service to Absorb 

Infrastructure Improvements

There is a limit as to how much interference operating rail services can absorb before train 

schedules are adversely affected due to slow-orders at work sites, or the requirement to manage 

two-way traffic on a single track, while the other track (or passing siding) is improved. In the case 

of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, the potential for adverse effect would likely be 

most pronounced for Alternative 90A, in which additional parallel track and passing sidings, and 

associated switches and turnouts to and from the main freight line, would be constructed in close 

proximity to operating trains. Because the improvements proposed under Alternative 90A also 

would occur under Alternatives 90B and 110, operating rail service under those alternatives also 

would be affected by proposed infrastructure improvements. The improvements proposed for 

Alternative 90A along Empire Corridor South and Niagara Branch would occur in Alternative 125. 

Alternative 125, with a new, separate corridor, would therefore present the least impact to the 

existing Empire Service. 

Specific corridor construction impacts upon train service operations will be further defined in Tier 

2 as detailed engineering is advanced on a preferred alternative. During Tier 2, the rate at which 

capital funding will be provided and the ability of existing train operations to absorb the effects of 

nearby construction will be more precisely assessed.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

5.5.2. Sequence of Capital Investments

Depending upon the alternative selected, the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program would 

result in continuing investment over most or all of the 20-year program life, from 2015 through 

2035. The existing rail corridor would remain in service as the improvements are made. The 

program improvements would be constructed in a sequence that minimizes interference with daily 

service, as a result, service improvements would occur and the benefits would be realized 

incrementally over the entire implementation time frame.

Exhibit 5-2 presents a proposed schedule of capital investments for each alternative. Capital costs 

are shown in 2015 dollars to enable comparison of total cost and overall benefit among 

alternatives. In subsequent phases of program evaluation (Tier 2), costs will be forecast with 

greater precision, based on the sequence of proposed improvements, which in turn will depend 

upon the level of available funding. 

Exhibit 5-2—Capital Expense Sequence for High-Speed Rail Alternatives

Page 5-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

5.5.3. Estimates of Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs,

Ridership and Revenues

Operating and Maintenance Responsibilities and Costs

Amtrak is responsible for operation of intercity passenger rail service along the entire Empire 

Corridor. Amtrak and CSXT currently share maintenance responsibilities between Poughkeepsie 

and Hoffmans. Recently, Amtrak and CSXT signed an agreement, which would transfer these CSXT 

maintenance and dispatching responsibilities to Amtrak. This agreement has been submitted to 

NYSDOT for approval. CSXT maintains responsibility for maintenance and dispatching on the 

portion of the corridor it owns between Hoffmans and Niagara Falls, and Amtrak continues these 

responsibilities on the portion of the corridor it owns between Penn Station and Spuyten Duyvil. 

Metro-North is responsible for ownership, maintenance, and dispatching along the corridor 

between Spuyten Duyvil and Poughkeepsie.

Exhibit 5-3 indicates the total annual operating cost for each Build Alternative as compared to the 

Base Alternative. Projected operating costs are based on existing Amtrak operating procedures and 

crew assignment protocols. The Base Alternative would include the existing four daily round-trips 

between Albany and Niagara Falls; the higher-speed alternatives would presume a doubling, from 

four to eight daily round trips. For Alternative 125, there would be almost five times the service 

(from four to 19 daily round trips) provided by the Base Alternative. The costs are shown in 

constant 2015 dollars to allow comparison across the alternatives.

Exhibit 5-3—Estimated Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

The higher operating costs for Alternatives 90B and 110 relative to Alternative 90A would be due to 

the addition of a dedicated passenger-only mainline track for the 294-mile-long Empire Corridor 

West. In comparison, Alternative 90A would implement only selected passing sidings to permit 

more fluid corridor dispatching. Alternative 125 would have the highest O&M costs, reflecting 

higher track maintenance standards and the costs of maintaining electric power distribution 

infrastructure (overhead catenary, substations, protection) for the dedicated high-speed track. 

Ridership

Both operating costs and ticket revenues are driven by the number of passengers carried, which 

determines the required number of trains, and, in turn, the number of crews, cleaning and 

maintenance staff, etc. Forecasting ridership for transportation services is a complex statistical 

process, which predicts travelers’ future behavior, based on analysis of past behavior in similar 

circumstances. The forecasting methodology employed for this Tier 1 EIS presumes that travelers:

1. Determine trips by the most appealing travel mode available for each journey;

2. Choose among the various available options based on (in generally descending order): cost and 

time, reliability, convenience (accessibility), comfort, and amenity;

3. Consider the difficulty of accessing the transport service in choosing how to travel (e.g., traffic 

congestion to a station, lack of parking, long walks to get to bus or train platforms); and

4. Act rationally – that is, in every case, they use the least costly or most efficient travel product (in 

terms of the above features) available.

Given the above “drivers” of travel mode choice (bus, car, plane, train, bicycle, walking), a computer 

model was used that recognizes the comparative speed, cost, accessibility, etc. of the travel modes 

between trip origins and destinations. For this program, the model assigned every trip in New 

York State that both begins and ends within the Empire Corridor. The model placed the Empire 

Corridor train service in competition with automobile, bus, and airplane travel modes. Assessing 

comparative cost, time, convenience, etc., the model forecast for the various alternatives the 

number of people that would elect to ride the train over automobile, bus, or airplane. 

Ridership forecasts are a function of market size and frequency of train service, as well as speed, 

cost, and convenience (e.g., number of transfers required, ease of access to stations). While more 

frequent service might attract more riders, there is a point of diminishing returns, as the capital and 

operating costs of the additional train sets grow beyond the value of the additional ridership the 

increased service may attract. The alternatives were therefore structured to maximize ridership at 

practical levels of investment in rolling stock and maintenance costs, given likely federal and state 

funding over the program’s implementation period. Refer to Appendix B, Ridership and Revenue 

Forecasting Report for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, for additional details regarding 

the ridership forecasting methodology. 

Exhibit 5-4 presents the 2035 annual ridership forecasts for the Empire Corridor under the five 

alternatives. 

Page 5-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 5-4—2035 Ridership Forecasts

Operating Revenue

Annual operating revenue forecasts are based on ridership forecasts between station pairs, 

multiplied by the current Amtrak travel fare between those pairs, assigned to the target comparison 

year. This allows comparison among the alternatives in terms of capital investments, annual O&M 

costs, and anticipated gross annual revenue and resulting required subsidy all in 2015 dollars. 

Exhibit 5-5 presents the estimated range of annual operating revenue in 2015 dollars for the five 

alternatives.

1.6

2.3

2.6 2.8

4.3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Millions of One

Base 90A 90B 110 125

-Way Trips

Alternatives

Ridership

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-19

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

Exhibit 5-5—Estimated Annual Operating Ticket Revenue

Annual Operating Deficits

Exhibit 5-6 summarizes the annual operating deficits for the five alternatives. These deficits 

account for the difference between total operating costs and combined anticipated ticket revenues. 

Non-ticket revenues derived from advertising, station concessions and leases, and utility leases 

along the ROW, while salutatory and contributory to the program, do not generally produce 

sufficient additional income that would alter the operating deficit. These additional revenues 

would likely be similar across all alternatives.

Exhibit 5-6 indicates that deficits, and corresponding subsidies, would be lowest for Alternative 110 

and greatest for Alternative 125. In general, while faster trains incur lower labor costs, as hourly 

wage train crews spend fewer hours on each run, propulsion costs are higher at high speeds, as are 

the costs of track maintenance, since high speed operations cause greater track wear. In addition, 

the greater number of daily trains intended to be operated under Alternative 125 would lead to 

higher crew and equipment maintenance costs.

77

119

139 149

245

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Alternatives

Annual Ticket Revenues

Millions $

Page 5-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 5-6—Estimated Annual Operating Subsidy

5.5.4. Financial Profiles of Alternatives

Exhibit 5-7 shows projected Tier 1 capital costs for the five alternative, divided by category: rolling 

stock purchases; planning, engineering design, and permitting; property acquisition costs; 

infrastructure construction costs; and Empire Corridor South improvement costs. Capital cost 

estimates also include a 35 percent contingency factor to account for uncertainties at the Tier 1 

program level of analysis for infrastructure improvements. As there are fewer uncertainties in 

rolling stock costs, equipment cost estimates include only a 5 percent contingency factor. 

The capital costs for the five alternatives would range from $290 million for the Base Alternative, to 

$14.71 billion for Alternative 125. While the analysis shows all costs in 2015 dollars, actual 

investments would be made gradually over the 20-year project life. A staged implementation 

approach is based on two factors: first, federal and state governments have limited financial 

capacity in any single year; second, existing rail operations can only support a limited amount of 

infrastructure renewal or new construction along the ROW before construction activities interfere 

with daily service.

103

156

171 173

304

77

119

139 149

245

26 37 32 24

59

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Millions $

Alternatives

Annual O&M Costs, Ticket Revenues and 

Subsidies

Operating Cost

Ticket Revenue

Operating

Subsidy

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

Exhibit 5-7—Capital Costs by Spending Category

The anticipated financial performance of each of the five alternatives is as follows.

Base Alternative

The Base Alternative would be comprised of previously funded infrastructure upgrades west of 

Albany and key congestion relief projects south of Albany. Because much of the Base Alternative 

work is already in the final stages of NEPA documentation or final design, construction could begin 

as early as 2013, and would be completed prior to 2020. The Base Alternative would maintain the 

existing four round trips between Albany and Buffalo, and 13 round trips between New York City 

and Albany. Because there would be no change from the current operation, no additional rolling 

stock would be required to implement the Base Alternative. Operating costs would continue as 

they are currently incurred by Amtrak, approximately $103 million annually. Ridership is forecast 

to be 1.6 million in 2035, generating ticket revenue of $77 million, and resulting in a deficit of $26 

million. Infrastructure costs to implement the Base Alternative would be $290 million; no new 

property would be required.

The Base Alternative would be completed by 2020, and its benefits (reduced congestion) would 

accrue gradually over the five-year construction period, with gradual improvements in reliability 

(on-time performance) and some modest increases in average speed.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Billions $

Alternatives

Capital Cost by Category

Contingency

Property

Acquisition

Engineering

& Permits

Rolling Stock

Page 5-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 5-8—Characteristics of Base Alternative

Alternative 90A

Alternative 90A would include considerably more infrastructure improvements beyond those 

programmed in the Base Alternative. It also would provide for an increase in train service from 

four to eight daily round trips between Albany and Buffalo, and from 13 to 16 daily round trips 

between New York City and Albany. The additional service would require purchase of six 

additional train sets, each with a locomotive and five passenger coaches, to supplement the existing 

fleet. The acquisition of additional rolling stock would add $0.19 billion in capital costs. Alternative 

90A would include $1.46 billion in infrastructure costs for additional passing track and various 

signal, grade crossing and switch improvements to reduce freight/passenger train conflicts, 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-23

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

increase permissible speeds through curves, improve system reliability, and secure the highest 

possible speed profile for the existing alignment. In total, capital costs would reach $1.66 billion for 

Alternative 90A; no property would be required. The required additional train maintenance and 

additional service would increase operating costs to $156 million. Based on shorter travel times 

due to increased speed, ridership would grow to 2.3 million annual passengers by 2035. Ticket 

revenue would be $119 million, resulting in a deficit of $37 million, annually.

Exhibit 5-9—Characteristics of Alternative 90A

Alternative 90A would be completed by 2035, and its benefits would accrue in steps, with 

approximately 25 percent of the maximum and average speed benefit accruing at the end of each 

five-year interval, with the completion of each segment of segregated track.

Page 5-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B would add one additional round trip between New York City and Albany over 

Alternative 90A, for a total of eight round trips between Albany and Buffalo, and 17 round trips

between New York City and Albany. The increase in service would be accomplished with the same 

fleet as required for Alternative 90A, involving six additional train sets and rolling stock costs of 

$0.19 billion. The central aspect of Alternative 90B would involve the provision of a third track 

west of Albany, to be constructed within the existing CSXT ROW, giving significant separation

between freight and passenger traffic. With the additional property required to grade separate the 

ROW and to reduce or eliminate curves to permit higher maximum speeds, infrastructure costs 

would be $5.39 billion. The total capital cost for Alternative 90B would be $5.58 billion in 2015 

dollars. Operating costs would rise to $171 million, accounting for the additional daily round trip 

(compared to the Alternative 90A). Ridership is forecast at 2.6 million, generating ticket revenues 

of $139 million, and resulting in a deficit of $32 million.

Exhibit 5-10—Characteristics of Alternative 90B

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-25

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

Alternative 90B is projected to be completed by 2035, and its maximum and average speed benefits 

would accrue in steps, with approximately 25 percent of the benefit accruing at the end of each fiveyear interval, with the completion of each new segment of dedicated track. 

Alternative 110

Alternative 110 would involve slightly more new track west of Albany; the higher speed of 

Alternative 110 would require more property acquisition to support straighter track, more grade 

separations and flatter terrain. The number of trips would be unchanged from that of Alternative 

90B. While rolling stock costs would remain at six additional sets and $0.19 billion, increasingly

stringent track standards for the higher speed would involve $6.06 billion in additional 

infrastructure, resulting in total capital costs of $6.25 billion. Operating costs would increase only 

Exhibit 5-11—Characteristics of Alternative 110

Page 5-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

slightly, to $173 million. Ridership would grow to 2.8 million in response to the higher speed, 

generating ticket revenues of $149 million, and producing the smallest annual deficit among the 

five alternatives, $24 million.

Alternative 110 is projected to be completed by 2035, and its maximum and average speed benefits 

would be achieved in steps, with approximately 25 percent of the benefit accruing at the end of 

each five-year interval, with the completion of each new segment of segregated track. 

Alternative 125

Alternative 125 would retain the existing “legacy” regional service on existing CSXT tracks, while 

also constructing a new, entirely separate ROW at a significant distance from the existing Empire 

Corridor on which to introduce limited stop 125 mph service. The new ROW would be fully grade 

separated, and straighter and flatter than that of any other alternative. The higher speed of 

operation, and consequently shorter trip times between endpoints, would allow the operation of 19 

daily round trips between Albany and Buffalo; New York City-to-Albany trips would increase to 24 

daily. This increased service frequency, and the electrified ROW would require more and different 

equipment: “dual mode” diesel and electric locomotives in place of diesel-only locomotives. 

Alternative 125 would have a substantial increase in fleet size: 17 additional train sets would be 

required. The dual mode locomotive fleet would have substantial costs, $0.58 billion; and a new, 

fully segregated ROW would require an infrastructure investment of $14.13 billion, for a total 

capital cost of $14.71 billion. The increase in average speeds, combined with increased service 

frequency on both segments and high-speed express service between major stops, would attract the 

highest additional ridership, forecast at 4.3 million, and generating revenues of $245 million 

annually. Operating costs for this increased level of service would be the highest of all the 

alternatives, at $304 million, producing an annual deficit of $59 million.

Alternative 125 would be completed by 2035. Its reliance on an entirely new ROW between Albany 

and Syracuse, however, would not be completed until the tenth year, indicating that the first 50 

percent of service benefits would not accrue until 2025. The next 25 percent service benefit would

accrue about five years later, with completion of the new ROW to Rochester; and the remaining 25 

percent benefit would accrue at the twentieth year, as the new corridor would reach Buffalo.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-27

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

Exhibit 5-12—Characteristics of Alternative 125

5.6. Summary of Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs, 

Revenues and Subsidies for Empire Corridor Alternatives

Exhibit 5-13 summarizes the capital and operating costs and revenues for each alternative to 

facilitate comparison.

Page 5-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 5-13—Summary of Costs and Revenues for High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Alternatives

 Alternative

 Metric

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Capital Costs*

Additional train sets 0 6 6 6 17**

Equipment Cost $0.00 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.58

Infrastructure Cost $0.29 $1.47 $5.39 $6.06 $14.13

Total Capital Cost $0.29 $1.66 $5.58 $6.25 $14.71

Operating & Maintenance Costs

O&M Cost (millions, 2015) $103 $156 $171 $173 $304

Revenue (millions) $77 $119 $139 $149 $245

Surplus/(Deficit) ($26) ($37) ($32) ($24) ($59)

Benefits

2035 Ridership

(millions annual one-way 

trips)

1.6 2.3 2.6 2.8 4.3

Ridership Gain vs. Base 0.7 1.0 1.2 2.7

Average Speed 51 57 61 63 77

Time, NYC – Niagara Falls

(hours: minutes) 9:06 8:08 7:36 7:22 6:02

Time Improvement vs. Base

(hours: minutes) n/a 58 1:30 1:44 3:04

Round Trips Albany – Buffalo 4 8 8 8 19

Round Trips Albany – Niagara 

Falls 3 7 7 7 6 

Round Trips NYC – Albany 13 16 17 17 24

*Costs in billions of 2015 year US dollars except where noted.

**Dual Mode locomotives required for Alternative 125

5.7. Funding Assumptions, Risks and Requirements

For the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, it is assumed that a combination of federal highspeed rail funds and state and local revenue sources would be used for various infrastructure 

improvements and/or equipment purchases, as appropriate to funding source requirements and 

restrictions. Some of these funding sources would require local match. It is assumed that the 

state’s participation through some combination of local investments in stations or parking, the 

dedication of state bond funds, or direct subsidies from state general revenues could satisfy the 

local match requirements. At the Tier 1 level of analysis, and given the uncertainties associated 

with current high-speed rail funding, the rate at which federal funding will be provided for the

program over the 20-year implementation period can only be estimated in broad terms, based on 

historical multi-year averages, adjusted for inflation.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

All capital costs are shown as if they would be received in 2015. This allows for an appraisal of the 

relative capital costs of the program alternatives in total value, without regard for the rate at which 

funding would be available for the different alternatives.

5.7.1. Financial Capacity Analysis

NYSDOT’s financial capacity to undertake major passenger rail improvement projects is 

constrained by limited resources and competing needs. Other NYSDOT major passenger rail 

improvement initiatives underway include participation in a wide range of capital investments 

required to maintain and improve rail transportation services in New York City and its Long Island 

and northern suburbs, as well as bus and rail rolling stock needs for other transit properties in the 

state’s smaller municipalities. NYSDOT is also involved in improving statewide freight rail services, 

in partnership with private freight rail owners. To a great degree, NYSDOT’s capacity to advance 

high-speed rail improvements will depend on dedicated local funding sources and federal support.

5.7.2. Risk and Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Strategies

Due to limitations associated with current funding sources, general budget pressures, and the need 

for continued maintenance of existing infrastructure, the pace of program implementation is 

difficult to project. Absent significant federal funding, NYSDOT currently has limited capacity to 

undertake major long-term investments in high-speed passenger rail projects. Moderate 

incremental investments are feasible within the context of existing and anticipated future funding. 

This Tier 1 financial analysis assumes substantial federal participation in the construction of any of 

the Build Alternatives. Furthermore, the federal programs outlined in Section 5.3.2 are primarily 

discretionary grants for capital improvements and related environmental and engineering studies, 

for which there is significant national competition.

NYSDOT has a history of providing operating support for inter-city and commuter rail transit, 

although there is no companion federal operating program. The financial analysis provided in 

Chapter 5 has defined a likely financial plan based on historic and potential future national funding 

trends. There are several operating and capital risks associated with the High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Program that would have to be addressed in formulating a detailed financial plan, 

however. Some additional fiscal capacity-related risks to NYSDOT and Amtrak are present as well. 

These risks are noted and described in the following subsections.

5.7.3. Capital Cost Risks

There remain considerable uncertainties in the capital cost estimates for the High Speed Rail 

Empire Corridor Program, due to the limitations noted earlier in this chapter. This uncertainty is 

not unusual at the Tier 1 conceptual planning level for a program of this magnitude. More refined

cost estimates will be prepared for the Service Development Plan, and again during Tier 2, when the

specific infrastructure improvements of the selected program alternative are advanced through 

detailed design. Exhibit 5-14 summarizes capital cost risks and Tier1–level mitigation strategies for 

the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. 

At the Tier 1 planning level, it is difficult to anticipate and mitigate for these and other potential 

Page 5-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5-31 

New York State Department of Transportation 

risks	 and	 uncertainties.	 	 During	 Tier	 2,	 NYSDOT	 will	 further	 develop	 planning,	 analysis,	 and	

engineering	design	data	for	these	alternatives.		NYSDOT	also	will	conduct	a	public	review	process	to	

generate	support	 for	a	 preferred	alternative.	 	The	High	Speed	Rail	Empire	Corridor	Program	will	

then	be	positioned	to	compete	effectively	for	federal,	state,	and	private	sector	funding	with	which	to	

initiate	implementation.	

5.7.4. Operating Cost Risks

As	previously	discussed,	changes	in	fare	structure	affect	ridership,	with	a	resulting	impact	on	fare	

revenue	and	cost	recovery.		Ridership	affects	service	levels,	which	in	 turn	affect	maintenance	and	

operating	 costs.	 	 Ridership	 and	 revenue	 are	 sensitive	 to	 on‐time	 performance	 and	 to	 fare	levels,	

which	 in	 turn	 affect	 the	 revenue	 forecasts	 and	 the	 operating	 ratio	 (the	 ratio	 of	 operating	 costs	

covered	by	fare	revenues).		Therefore,	if	the	overall	quality,	speed,	reliability,	and	availability	of	the	

new	service	would	not	meet	customer	demand,	ridership	could	be	lower	than	 forecast,	producing	

higher	operating	deficits	and	requiring	additional	state	subsidies.		Conversely,	if	the	overall	quality,	

speed,	reliability,	and	availability	of	the	new	service	would	meet	customer	demand,	ridership	could	

be	higher	than	forecast,	resulting	in	lower	operating	deficits	and	requiring	less	state	subsidies.	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 5 – Financial Capacity

Exhibit 5-14—Summary of Tier 1 Capital Costs Risks and Mitigation

Risk Mitigation

Negotiations with railroads. No provision is 

included for costs arising from negotiations with 

operating railroads regarding their potential 

contribution to capital, or potential costs 

involved in protecting freight crossings 

(necessary to permit high-speed passenger 

service) or the use of ROW based on sharing 

agreements. 

The uncertainty associated with costs of CSXT 

participation is reasonably accommodated in the 

broad 35% construction contingency factor.

Property costs. ROW acquisition costs are difficult 

to estimate in an uncertain commercial and 

residential real-estate market. 

As corridors are more precisely defined during Tier 2 

work, it will be possible to sharpen the estimate for 

required property for the selected alternative.

Broad unit costs (per ton, per cubic yard, per linear 

foot, etc.) have been applied for key elements 

rather than estimates based upon specific 

designs. 

During Tier 2 work on the selected alternative, as design 

detail is refined, costs specific to each element of 

infrastructure improvement will be more precisely 

defined.

Mitigation costs. No allowances have been provided 

for utilities, wetlands mitigation, and 

preservation of historic structures, potential 

hazardous materials or other special site 

conditions. 

These uncertainties have been addressed to a 

considerable degree: the 35% contingency factor is 

applied to property acquisition as well as to 

construction; the engineering design/permitting cost 

category has been applied at 15%, rather than a 

more conservative 10-12% as is normally the case in 

standard construction. As the design becomes more 

refined, mitigation costs will be better defined and 

may be either more or less than the costs as 

accounted for in this Tier 1 analysis. 

Inflation rate. The rate of inflation is uncertain; 

moreover, inflation as represented in the 

consumer price index is not always 

representative of inflation for heavy construction 

or, more specifically, heavy rail construction, 

which tends to depend on competitive worldwide demand for concrete and steel at the time a 

project is designed and ready to bid. 

Application of a 35% contingency factor for both 

construction and property acquisition addresses this 

concern to a degree. It is virtually impossible, 

however, to forecast these factors beyond a 5-10 year 

time frame, so a 20-year program schedule is 

necessarily burdened with some additional risk.

Financial market. Financial risks and interest rates 

may increase as capital markets respond to 

changes in the financial market and global 

economy. To the extent that project elements 

are funded by CSXT or through private-public 

partnerships involving debt, costs of debt service 

can vary dramatically. 

Government typically reserves low-interest debt programs 

through its economic development function. Where 

commercial debt becomes too costly, Government can 

sometimes guarantee debt, and thereby reduce its 

risk and associated costs, so that the debt-service 

costs can be maintained within reasonable ranges 

commensurate with these initial cost estimates.

Federal participation. The level of federal 

participation may be lower than estimated.

Because the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

constitutes a large number of individual 

infrastructure improvements, should federal funding 

be insufficient, the program could be implemented 

more slowly and over a longer time period, still 

delivering steady improvement in corridor rail 

service.

Local participation. The level of local funding 

commitment may be lower than estimated.

With sufficient public support, through referendum or 

bonding, it may be possible for NYSDOT to dedicate 

funding to the program to immunize it from the ebb 

and flow of local tax revenues and annual budgeting 

and legislative appropriations. 

Page 5-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

6. Comparison of Alternatives

6.1. Introduction

This chapter summarizes and compares the five alternatives considered in this Tier 1 Draft EIS and 

evaluates the alternatives’ benefits, costs, and environmental and social impacts against the 

program’s purpose and need. 

Following completion of the Tier 1 review process, NYSDOT will advance a selected alternative 

toward implementation. The selected alternative likely advanced by NYSDOT as a program of 

projects and Tier 2 environmental reviews will include more detailed analyses and design to 

identify site-specific environmental consequences, implementation plans, and mitigation measures.

6.2. Goals and Objectives

NYSDOT developed program performance objectives and transportation-related goals based on the 

program purpose to improve rail service and on the program needs to reduce infrastructure 

constraints that impede service and to accommodate passenger and freight traffic demand. 

The environmental impacts of these alternatives are also considered in this Tier 1 Draft EIS (in 

Chapter 4) and summarized below. 

6.2.1. Performance Objectives

The following six performance objectives are used to evaluate and rank the high-speed rail 

alternatives developed for the High Speed Empire Corridor Program. 

• Improve system-wide on-time performance (OTP) to at least 90 percent;

• Reduce travel time along all segments of the Empire Corridor;

• Increase the frequency of service (number of daily round trips) along Empire Corridor West 

beyond the existing four daily round trips;

• Attract additional passengers;

• Reduce automobile trips, thereby reducing highway congestion; and

• Minimize passenger rail interference with freight rail operations.

6.2.2. Transportation-Related Goals

The following transportation-related goals were considered important to the high-speed rail 

alternatives developed for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The environmental 

impacts of these alternatives are also considered, as presented in this Tier 1 Draft EIS, and are 

important factors in selecting the alternative to be advanced. 

• Increase travel choices and improve quality of life by providing additional commuting and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-1

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

travel options for residents and workers;

• Contribute to economic revitalization by accommodating forecasted growth in population and 

employment and corridor rail freight operations; and

• Improve environmental quality by facilitating rail use and reducing reliance on automobile 

travel, thereby reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

6.3. Alternatives Assessment

This section presents a comparative assessment of the five program alternatives advanced for study 

in this Tier 1 Draft EIS: Base Alternative, Alternative 90A, Alternative 90B, Alternative 110, and 

Alternative 125. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to highlight the advantages and 

disadvantages of the alternatives, and to identify important distinctions among them. 

6.3.1. Base Alternative Performance

The Base Alternative, or “No Action” Alternative, is carried through the Tier 1 EIS as the basis for 

evaluating and comparing the costs and impacts of the program alternatives in relation to the 

benefits gained by the public. The Base Alternative’s specific elements represent a series of rail 

improvement projects that address previously identified capacity and speed constraints hindering 

the Empire Corridor rail service. The Base Alternative’s projects would occur whether or not 

improvements in the four “Build” alternatives discussed in this Tier 1 EIS are advanced. 

Additionally, NEPA reviews have been completed for the Base Alternative associated projects, such 

that they are now programmed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and 

the New York State Rail Plan, and are being advanced.

The projects constructed under the Base Alternative will represent an improvement over existing 

conditions. However, when compared to the Build Alternatives, the Base Alternative will not 

provide service levels sufficient to meet the purpose and need of the High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Program of introducing higher passenger train speeds on the Empire Corridor and 

improving reliability, travel times, service frequency, and passenger amenities. The following are 

the key characteristics of the Base Alternative, relative to this Empire Corridor program’s 

performance objectives and goals: 

• The Base Alternative would result in the lowest annual ridership of all the alternatives, at 

1.6 million (year 2035). All Build Alternatives significantly exceed this value.

• The Base Alternative would have the slowest average speed (51 mph) and longest trip time 

of all the alternatives (9 hours and 6 minutes between New York City and Niagara Falls).

• The Base Alternative would not result in improved service frequencies. The Base 

Alternative does not provide any improvement in scheduled service. All other alternatives offer 

increases in the number of daily trains operated as compared to the existing service.

• The Base Alternative would be the least effective alternative in diverting auto users to 

passenger rail and improving air quality by reducing vehicular emissions. Auto diversions 

Page 6-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

increase in direct response to increasing average speed and reduced trip times among major 

origin/destination pairs. 

• Delivering only 83 percent on-time performance, the Base Alternative would not meet 

program service reliability goals of 90 percent OTP. All of the other Build Alternatives 

would exceed the 90 percent OTP target.

6.3.2. Build Alternatives Performance

This section summarizes the effectiveness of the Build Alternatives in meeting the Empire Corridor 

program’s stated goals and performance objectives. Exhibit 6-1 presents the qualitative rating 

system used to compare the Build Alternatives. Exhibit 6-2 summarizes the effectiveness of the 

alternatives in meeting the program’s performance objectives using the qualitative rating system. 

The Base Alternative is shown for comparison. 

Exhibit 6-1—Alternative Rating Symbols

Symbol Rating

 Strongly supports program performance objectives 

+ Supports program performance objectives

O Neutral regarding program performance objectives

X Contrary to program performance objectives 

Exhibit 6-2—Effectiveness of Alternatives in Meeting Performance Objectives 

Performance 

Objectives Base 90A 90B 110 1251

Improve System-Wide 

On-Time Performance X    /X

(Express/Regional)

Reduce Travel Time O + + + / +

(Express/Regional)

Increase Service 

Frequency X + + + /+

(Express/Regional)

Attract Ridership O    

Reduce Automobile 

Trips O + + + 

Minimize Impact on 

Freight Rail Service O O + + O

Notes: 

1 Performance on the new express service and the legacy regional service will differ, as explained in the following subsections.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-3

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

The findings regarding the performance of the Base and Build Alternatives reveal that:

• Alternative 90A strongly supports the performance objectives of improving system-wide ontime performance and attracting ridership. Alternative 90A also supports the objectives of 

reducing travel times, increasing service frequency, and reducing automobile trips. Alternative 

90A is neutral with regard to the objective to minimize adverse effects on freight train 

operations.

• Alternatives 90B and 110 would both create a segregated rail corridor, by providing exclusive 

third and fourth tracks for use by passenger trains. These alternatives would both strongly 

support the goals of improving system-wide on-time performance and attracting ridership. 

These alternatives would also support the goals of reducing travel times, increasing service 

frequency, reducing automobile trips, and minimizing impacts on freight rail service. 

• Benefits from Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 all are realized soon after initiation of 

construction; with these benefits increasing steadily throughout the entire term of the program 

as many important track, signal, yard, and grade-crossing improvements are implemented. 

• Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 all would enhance service for each station destination along 

the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: Albany-Rensselaer, Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, 

Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo-Depew, Buffalo Exchange Street, and Niagara Falls Stations.

• Alternative 125 express service strongly supports the program performance objectives of 

improving system-wide on-time performance, reducing travel times, increasing service 

frequency, attracting ridership, and reducing automobile trips. The regional service (legacy 

service) maintained along the existing Empire Corridor for Alternative 125 would support the 

goals of increasing service frequency and reducing travel time and would be contrary to the 

goal of improving system-wide on-time performance. Alternative 125 would be neutral in 

terms of minimizing impact on freight rail service. Alternative 125 would have an extremely 

high capital and annual operating cost, requiring the highest public subsidies (after the Base 

Alternative), and has the greatest potential for environmental and community impacts.

• Alternative 125 would not be completed until 2035, due to the need to construct an entirely 

new right-of-way through undeveloped areas, so the mobility benefits associated with 

Alternative 125 would not occur until then. The public would receive no transportation 

benefits from Alternative 125 until the first major new segment of track – from Albany to 

Syracuse – is completed, around 2025. Even then, for travelers destined for Rochester or 

Buffalo/Niagara Falls, true high-speed service would not be available until 2030 or possibly 

later. During the period of its construction, travelers would continue to receive only the 

benefits available from the Base Alternative.

• Alternative 125 does not provide service enhancements to several existing station 

destinations on the Empire Corridor West including: Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, Rome, 

and Niagara Falls. Benefits at these destinations are limited to the benefits described in the 

Base Alternative as the existing regional legacy service would still be provided.

Additional details on this evaluation are presented in the following subsections.

Page 6-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Improve System-Wide On-Time Performance

In 2008, Amtrak trains were operating at an annual on-time performance (OTP) of approximately 

84 percent between New York City and Albany, and 57 percent between Albany and Niagara Falls, 

with an average OTP between New York City and Buffalo of 77 percent. In 2011, Amtrak reported a 

much higher level of reliability of approximately 90 percent of trains being on-time at all 

destinations. The reasons for the improvement in OTP include the completion of major track 

rebuilding projects along the length of the Empire Corridor, which took place between 2008 and 

2010. By 2011, these projects were substantially complete and track outages related to 

construction were less frequent. Most importantly, freight train volumes and lengths declined 

significantly between 2008 and 2011, due to national and global economic conditions. With fewer 

freight trains on the line, passenger trains were less likely to be delayed. This benefit to passenger 

trains is likely to be temporary, as freight train frequency and length are both increasing with the 

economic recovery. Exhibit 6-3 presents the estimated OTP for each alternative.

Exhibit 6-3—Estimated On-Time Performance, Albany – Niagara Falls, 2035

Alternative Passenger Train 

OTP Percentage1

Qualitative 

Ranking

Base 83.0 X

90A 92.4 

90B 95.4 

110 94.9 

125 Express 

125 Regional 100/83.0 /X

(Express/Regional)

Notes: 

1 Based on 10 minute lateness threshold, measured at terminal endpoints.

 Strongly supports program goals and objectives

+ Supports program goals and objectives

O Neutral regarding program goals or objectives

X Contrary to program goals or objectives

All of the program Build Alternatives sustain or exceed this 90 percent OTP value, even as both 

freight and passenger traffic grows over the forecasted time frame. Only the Base Alternative fails 

to meet this objective. Computer simulation results for the Empire Corridor West indicate that all 

four Build Alternatives would satisfy the 90 percent minimum OTP goal, as defined in the program 

purpose and need. As Amtrak’s 2008 base numbers indicate, OTP south of Albany has been 

historically much better than OTP west of Albany, because of low freight traffic on Empire Corridor 

South. 

The 2035 Base Alternative has a projected OTP of 83 percent, while Alternative 90A has a projected 

OTP of 92.4 percent. Alternatives 90B and 110 have similar projected OTPs, ranging from 94.9 

percent to 95.4 percent. Alternative 125, which would run predominantly on new dedicated 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-5

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

passenger rail ROW between Albany and Buffalo, is projected to have the best average OTP for 

destinations it serves including Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, at 100 

percent, while the legacy regional service continuing to serve destinations including Schenectady, 

Amsterdam, Utica, Rome, and Niagara Falls would continue to experience conflicts with freight 

operations in the Albany-Buffalo corridor, therefore remaining at the same OTP levels as the Base 

Alternative, 83 percent. 

Reduce Travel Time Along all Segments of the Empire Corridor

The travel times between origins and destinations on the Empire Corridor associated with each 

alternative were evaluated using a track and signal system computer simulation model. Simulated 

train runs were scheduled to avoid freight operations on shared tracks by the careful timing of 

passenger train arrivals at bypass tracks, located to permit high-speed passenger trains to pass 

slower freight trains. For Alternatives 90B and 110, a second main track was added over longer 

segments between Albany and Buffalo to increase passenger track capacity to some of the existing 

single-track sections to minimize the amount of track sharing and to further increase average 

speed. Exhibit 6-4 presents the estimated travel time for all alternatives.

Exhibit 6-4—Estimated Travel Times of the Alternatives, 2035 

Alternative

Travel Time 

NYC – Niagara 

Falls

Estimated 

Time Savings

Percentage 

Time Savings 

over Base

Qualitative 

Ranking

Base 9:06 -- -- O

90A 8:08 58 11% +

90B 7:36 1:30 16% +

110 7:22 1:44 19% +

125 Express

125 Regional

6:02

8:40

3:04

26

34%

5%



+

Notes: Times presented in hours: minutes, based on westbound scheduled times

 Strongly supports program goals and objectives

+ Supports program goals and objectives

O Neutral regarding program goals or objectives

X Contrary to program goals or objectives

With respect to the Base, each of the Build Alternatives would result in a travel time savings of 

about 13 minutes between New York and Albany (Empire Corridor South). The Base travel time 

between these two points is the same as today because there are no committed capital 

improvements between New York and Albany that allow scheduled travel time reductions. 

Alternative 90A would produce an overall corridor travel time savings of 58 minutes between New 

Page 6-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

York City and Niagara Falls compared to the Base Alternative. The time savings between New York 

City and Albany remains constant for Alternative 90A (and each of the Build Alternatives) at about 

13 minutes. Alternatives 90B and 110 would produce larger time savings of one and one-half hours 

or more (1:30 and 1:44, respectively) compared to the Base Alternative. Most of this time savings 

would occur on the segment between Albany and Buffalo, although time saving percentages in 

Exhibit 6-4 reflect the entire trip travel time.

The Alternative 125 express service on new corridor, including a transfer at Buffalo to regional or 

shuttle service on the existing Empire Corridor for the final leg of the trip, would provide a 

significant improvement of the average travel time between New York City and Niagara Falls from 9 

hours and six minutes (9:06) under the Base Alternative to 6 hours and 2 minutes (6:02), 

shortening the trip by just over three hours for passengers traveling between New York City and 

Niagara Falls. For Alternative 125, however, the New York-Niagara Falls legacy regional service 

(serving all intermediate stations, including Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome) would 

experience modest improvements in travel time over the Base Alternative, due to improvements 

along Empire Corridor South and Niagara Branch. Travelers from New York using legacy service to 

non-express-stop cities would experience shorter travel times (about 13 minutes faster) and faster 

speeds than those available under the Base Alternative.194 

The alternatives differ in terms of the range of train-by-train trip time improvements on the Empire 

Corridor. For the Base, 90B, 110, and 125 (both express and regional) Alternatives, most train trips 

have the same scheduled travel time over the course of the day. Alternative 90A differs in that it 

provides some limited stops service with faster trip times (3 round trips New York – Niagara Falls 

with one additional round trip Albany – Niagara Falls). Exhibit 6-4 presents average travel times 

between New York City and Niagara Falls. The trip times of Alternative 90A range from 7:50 to 

8:30, with the overall average (Exhibit 6-4) of 8:08.

Increase Frequency of Service along Empire Corridor West

Currently, there are four daily round trips provided between New York City and Niagara Falls. 

Eighty percent of New York State’s 19.4 million residents live within 30 miles of the Empire 

Corridor. The convenience of reliable and frequent rail travel would contribute to the accessibility 

of communities along and near the corridor, enhancing their economic and cultural vitality and 

supporting local and regional economic development efforts. The proposed schedule enhancement 

for each alternative, including frequency of service and availability of express service trips, is 

presented in Exhibit 6-5. 

Each of the Build Alternatives would enhance the service schedule that would be provided with the 

Base Alternative, which would continue to provide the same service as the existing Empire Service. 

Alternatives 90A and 125 would both offer some forms of express service, while Alternative 125 

would also retain the existing regional service and service levels on the existing corridor. The 

average speeds and trip times achieved under Alternatives 90B and 110 are sufficiently improved 

such that all stops can be made. 

194 /Due to the need to schedule regional services on the existing corridor to minimize conflicts with freight train services, it was not 

possible to design the Alternative 125 service to provide efficient “meets” between regional and express trains traveling the new 125 

mph corridor at Albany, Rochester, Syracuse or Buffalo. Therefore, travelers on regional trains to/from Rome, Utica or Schenectady 

would not realize significant time savings by transferring at these “express” stations.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-7

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

Exhibit 6-5—Schedule Enhancement by Alternative

Alternative

Frequency of Service Available Express 

Service Trips 

(Included in total 

Albany – Buffalo 

trips)

NYC – Albany Albany – Buffalo Qualitative Ranking

Base 13 4 0 X

90A 16 8 4 +

90B 17 8 0 +

110 17 8 0 +

125 Express

125 Regional

-

24

15

4

15

0



+

 Strongly supports program goals and objectives

+ Supports program goals and objectives

O Neutral regarding program goals or objectives

X Contrary to program goals or objectives

Alternative 90A would increase service between New York City and Albany to 16 round trips per 

day, a 23 percent gain above the current 13 trips in the Base Alternative. Service between AlbanyRensselaer Station and Buffalo would increase to 8 daily round trips, roughly doubling the current 

4-trip service to Buffalo in the Base Alternative. With Alternatives 90B and 110, the frequency of 

service between New York City and Albany would increase to 17 round trips a day, representing a 

30 percent gain as compared to the Base Alternative, and service between Albany and Buffalo, 

would double (to 8 round trips daily). With Alternative 125, service between New York City and 

Albany would increase to 24 round trips a day, an approximate 85 percent increase in service, and 

service between Albany and Buffalo would increase to 19 daily round trips, nearly four times the 

number of trips under the Base Alternative. Of those 19 daily trips, 15 would be added to the new 

125 mph alignment, reconnecting with the existing alignment at Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and 

Buffalo stations. As noted earlier, for Alternative 125, the existing 4 regional trains would continue 

on the existing alignment, serving all of the intermediate stations including Schenectady, 

Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome.

Increase Ridership

Over 1.4 million passengers rode on the Empire Corridor in FY 2011. Although rail ridership has 

grown in recent years, passenger rail has the lowest market share of trips when compared to other 

available modes of transportation (automobile, bus and air). Automobile travel, particularly on 

I-87/I-90 (the New York State Thruway), comprises the majority of trips (roughly 211 million 

single-person trips in 2009). The ridership for each alternative is shown in Exhibit 6-6.

Page 6-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 6-6—Ridership by Alternative, 2035

Alternative Total

Percentage 

Increase from 

Base

Qualitative

Ranking

Base 1.6 million - O

90A 2.3 million 44% 

90B 2.6 million 63% 

110 2.8 million 75% 

125 4.3 million 169% 

 Strongly supports program goals and objectives

+ Supports program goals and objectives

O Neutral regarding program goals or objectives

X Contrary to program goals or objectives

With the Base Alternative, ridership is projected to increase by 16 percent compared to 2009 levels, 

with proportionally greater ridership gains anticipated with Alternatives 90B, 110, and 125. The 

largest increase in ridership would be achieved under Alternative 125, with a 270 percent increase 

in ridership, to a 2035 projected ridership of 4.3 million. However, given the lengthy timeline to 

implement Alternative 125, the benefit of this ridership gain will be significantly delayed, compared 

to the other alternatives. All of the alternatives support the program need to attract ridership, with 

the four Build Alternatives strongly supporting the program need.

The majority of ridership gains would occur in the New York City to Empire Corridor West markets, 

particularly between Albany and Buffalo/Niagara Falls. These increases reflect the relatively 

pronounced response of travelers to the significantly increased service levels and reductions in 

travel time between New York City and Empire Corridor West markets. New York City to Albany 

rail ridership would increase modestly over current levels, reflecting the already robust ridership 

and more frequent service. 

Reduce Automobile Trips

Experience demonstrates the relatively inelasticity of automobile travel; that is, auto drivers do not 

typically switch to public transit without significant gains in travel time or reductions in cost. As 

travelers’ predominant concern is time, meaningful reductions in automobile travel are forecast 

due to the improved rail travel time resulting from higher average speeds (refer to Exhibit 6-4), 

increased flexibility in service (refer to Exhibit 6-5), and increased reliability of service (refer to 

Exhibit 6-3). The anticipated diversion of automobile travelers to rail from the Base Alternative, 

and corresponding reduction in automobile trips, is shown in Exhibit 6-7. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-9

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

Exhibit 6-7—Annual Reduction in Auto Trips, 2035, Compared to Base Alternative

Alternatives

Diversion from Highways

(one-way trips) Qualitative 

Ranking2

Autos One-Way 

Person Trips1

Base --- --- O

90A 84,209 126,313 +

90B 139,519 209,279 +

110 177,603 266,404 +

125 485,078 727,616 

Notes: 

1 estimated at 1.5 passengers/car

2 based on 2035 estimate of total trips 

 Strongly supports program goals and objectives

+ Supports program goals and objectives

O Neutral regarding program goals or objectives

X Contrary to program goals or objectives

Reducing automobile trips may also reduce congestion along the New York State Thruway and 

other major highways. Each of the Build Alternatives would support the program’s transportationrelated goals of increasing travel choices, contributing to economic revitalization by 

accommodating population and employment growth forecasts, and improving air quality through 

the introduction of high-speed rail along the Empire Corridor.

Minimize Impact on Freight Rail Operations

Freight movements on Empire Corridor west, from Selkirk Yard in the Albany area to Buffalo, have 

historically been an impediment to the reliable operation of passenger rail services, and conversely, 

passenger service can also affect freight movements. Exhibit 6-8 presents an evaluation of the 

alternatives relative to their influence on freight travel times. The table shows that even with 

increased freight and passenger volumes, delays for freight services are generally held at or 

improved over current levels.

The freight train operations with the Build Alternatives would operate the same as or better than 

the Base Alternative. Alternatives 90B and 110 would perform the best of the Build Alternatives 

with respect to impact upon future freight train operations. With Alternative 90B, freight train 

delay-minutes would decrease the most among all alternatives, improving 10 percent over the Base 

Alternative and 6 percent over Alternative 110, the second best Build Alternative. Among all 

alternatives, Alternative 90B would have the highest average freight train speed. Average freight 

trip times would show the greatest improvement under Alternative 110. 

Page 6-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 6-8—Impact on Freight Train Operations, 2035

Alternative

Delay-Minutes per 

100 Train Miles 

Operated

(minutes: seconds)

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

(mph)

Trip Times, Selkirk 

Yard to Buffalo

(hours: minutes)

Trip Time 

Variability

(hours: 

minutes)

Qualitative 

Ranking

Base* 36:19 30.3 8:14 1:37 O

90A 42:06 29.4 8:23 2:04 O

90B 32:47 31.1 8:09 1:51 +

110 34:57 30.8 8:04 1:39 +

125 36:19 30.3 8:14 1:37 O

* The freight operating statistics for the Base Alternative include the delay reduction, average speed improvement, and trip time benefits 

of the Rochester third track improvements, an 11-mile project that no longer has committed capital funding. Therefore it is anticipated 

that freight performance measures for the Base Alternative will be worse than shown. Preliminary testing indicates that eliminating this 

physical improvement from the Base Alternative but retaining it in all other alternatives (consistent with their definition in the EIS) 

results in 90A, 90B and 110 Alternative freight operating statistics that are superior to the Base. The freight operating statistics for the 

125 Alternative are the same as those for the Base. 

 Strongly supports program goals and objectives

+ Supports program goals and objectives

O Neutral regarding program goals or objectives

X Contrary to program goals or objectives

Exhibit 6-8 also gives data on trip time variability, which is best explained by example. A train that 

is routinely 10 minutes late has very low trip time variability, while a train that may be on time one 

day and two hours late on another has very great trip time variability. Using this factor, it can be 

seen that the Base Alternative (as well as Alternative 125) would have the lowest trip time 

variability of all alternatives. Only a modest increase in trip time variability is projected for 

Alternative 110, while Alternatives 90A and 90B would have the highest trip time variability of the 

alternatives. Alternative 110 would have the most favorable combination of trip time and trip time 

variability of the alternatives.

6.3.3. Comparison of Operational Performance and Costs

Selecting a preferred alternative among several options involves weighing and balancing costs and 

impacts against operational and mobility benefits. Exhibit 6-9 presents a tabular summary of 

performance measures for each alternative, such as service frequency, average speeds, travel times, 

time savings, on-time performance, and ridership. This exhibit also presents cost considerations, 

such as capital and operating/maintenance costs, revenues, deficits, cost-effectiveness, and 

subsidies, for all five alternatives. 

Mobility can be measured in terms of improved passenger and freight movement as expressed by 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

higher speeds and schedule frequency (for rail services), and improved reliability. A significant 

additional factor in judging relative appeal among the alternatives is how quickly their benefits 

could be available to travelers: all else being equal, alternatives that yield benefits sooner are 

preferable. A synopsis of strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives from a cost and operational 

standpoint is presented in this section. Key findings shown in Exhibit 6-9 include:

• Alternative 110 produces the greatest transportation benefits at the lowest per-rider 

cost subsidy; at approximately $9 per trip, which would be 25 percent less than the next 

most cost-effective Alternative 90B ($12 per trip) and just over 43 percent less than the Base 

Alternative value ($16.25 per trip).

• Alternative 110’s relatively high ridership and moderate operating cost produces the 

highest recovery of costs through ticket sales, 86 percent, compared to 81 percent for the 

next best alternatives (Alternatives 90B and 125) and a low of 75 percent for the Base 

Alternative.

• Alternative 125 would produce the highest ridership; however, Alternative 125 would 

relegate travelers from Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome to the use of regional 

train service on the existing corridor. Moreover, because of limited train slots over MetroNorth south of Poughkeepsie and schedule constraints on the Amtrak Empire Connector 

between Spuyten-Duyvil and New York City (on which both the high-speed and regional 

services would operate), there would be little value in transferring between regional and highspeed services at Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester or Buffalo. Therefore, the benefits of 

Alternative 125 would not be enjoyed by Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome passengers 

(even with a transfer), while the other Build Alternatives would confer their benefits on the 

entire rail traveling population. 

• Alternative 125 is the most costly alternative: at $14.71 billion, it would cost more than 

twice as much as the next most costly alternative (Alternative 110).

• The Base Alternative has the lowest capital cost, but results in the fewest transportation 

benefits, and fails in significant terms to achieve the program goals.

• Alternative 125 would take the longest time to confer travel benefits in the Empire 

Corridor. Because a new right-of-way must be assembled, acquired, constructed, and placed 

into service, no benefits would be available until the first major Albany-Syracuse segment can 

be completed, around 2025. Other alternatives begin conferring benefits within 2 to 5 years of 

the start of construction, likely in the 2015 to 2020 time period, with benefits continually 

increasing as additional improvements – signals, track, switches, grade crossings, and 

separations, bridges – are introduced in succeeding construction phases.

• Alternatives 90B and 110 would provide the best future performance for freight rail 

operation in the corridor. The other Build Alternatives would allow freight trains to operate 

as well as or better than the Base Alternative. Alternatives 90B and 110 would provide 

segregated tracks and would provide the greatest relief from potential future congestion delay. 

With Alternatives 90B and 110, freight train delay would decrease and average speeds would 

increase the most among all alternatives. Average trip times would show the greatest 

improvement under Alternative 110. Freight train travel time variability, a measure of service 

reliability, is expected to be similar across all five alternatives.

Page 6-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 6-9—Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Service Levels

(In round-trips/day)

Frequency of Service NYC to 

Albany 13 16 17 17 24

Frequency of Service Albany 

to Buffalo 4 8 8 8 15 (express)4 (regional)

Frequency of Service Albany 

to Niagara Falls 3 7 7 7 6

Average Speed NYC to 

Niagara Falls (mph) 51 57 61 63 77 (express)53(regional)

Travel Time: (hrs.:min.) NYC 

to Niagara Falls 9:06 8:08 7:36 7:22 6:02 (express)8:40 (regional)

Time Savings: Compared to 

Base Alternative (hrs.: min.) - 58 1:30 1:44 3:04 (express)26 (regional)

On-Time Performance 83.0% 92.4% 95.4% 94.9%

100% 

(express)

83.0% 

(regional)

Ridership (Annual One Way)

Total (2035) 1.6 million 2.3 million 2.6 million 2.8 million 4.3 million

Increase as Compared to 

Base Alternative - 0.7 million (44%)

1.0 million 

(63%)

1.2 million 

(75%)

2.7 million 

(169%)

Costs1

Capital Costs (Billions) $0.290 $1.66 $5.58 $6.25 $14.71

O&M Costs, Annual 

(Millions) $103 $156 $171 $173 $304

Revenue, Annual (Millions) $77 $119 $139 $149 $245

Total [Deficit]/Surplus 

(Millions) [$26] [$37] [$32] [$24] [$59]

Operating Ratio (percent 

O&M costs covered by 

revenue)

75% 76% 81% 86% 81%

Cost Effectiveness 

(Annualized O&M Cost per 

Rider) 

$64.38 $67.83 $65.77 $61.79 $70.70

[Subsidy]/Surplus per Rider 

(rounded) [$16] [$16] [$12] [$9] [$14]

*Capital Costs are in 2015 dollars

6.4. Summary of Environmental Impacts

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the five alternatives on social, cultural, and 

environmental resources, and highlights key distinctions among them. Evaluations are based on 

conceptual designs and Geographic Information System (GIS) and file-based resource mapping, 

suitable for making corridor-wide, service-level determinations for the Empire Corridor. Upon 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

selection of an alternative at the conclusion of this Tier 1 evaluation, the quantitative extent of 

impacts will be determined during Tier 2 evaluations and NEPA documentation, as specific projects, 

e.g., bridges, grade crossings, signal and track improvements, are advanced through design. 

Mitigation strategies presented in Chapter 4 of this Tier 1 EIS will also be further defined during 

Tier 2 evaluations.

Exhibit 6-10 compares the potential impacts of the alternatives using a relative rating system to 

distinguish the lowest (designated L) to highest (designated H) impact potential among the 

alternatives. A summary of the findings for all the social, cultural and natural resource categories 

discussed in Chapter 4 of this document is presented in Exhibit 6-11, at the end of this chapter.

Each alternative would affect the societal, cultural and natural environment differently. The Base 

Alternative would have the lowest potential for impact. Alternative 90A, consisting of 20 projects 

conducted largely within existing rights-of-way, would also be expected to have minimal impacts. 

Exhibit 6-10—Comparison of Alternatives in Selected Impact Areas

Alternative/

Impact Area Base 90A 90B 110 125

Land Use L L M M H

Community L L L M H

Historic L M H H M1

Parks L L L M H

Visual L L M M H

Farmland L L M M H

Waterbodies L M M M H

Floodplains L L M M H

Wetlands L L M M H

Wildlife L L M M H

Air Quality L B B B B

Energy/ 

Greenhouse Gas L B-L B-L B-M B-H

Noise/Vibration L M M M H

L Potential for adverse effect is lowest among the alternatives

M Potential for adverse effect is moderate among the alternatives

H Potential for adverse effect is highest among the alternatives

B Long-term beneficial impact

1 The undeveloped nature of the 125 Study Area may contribute to the lack of documented historic resources.

Page 6-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternatives 90B would involve work extending outside of the right-of-way, and impacts would be 

even greater with track construction extending further outside of the right-of-way with Alternative 

110. Overall, Alternative 125 has the highest potential for impact of all the alternatives, with 

construction of a new segregated corridor and sections of elevated tracks where the railroad 

extends over the existing Empire Corridor. If Alternative 125 is selected for further consideration, 

design in Tier 2 will be advanced and will consider ways to further avoid and minimize impacts 

associated with this alternative.

Details of the social, cultural, and natural resource impacts of each alternative are discussed in 

Chapter 4 of this document, and a brief overview of the environmental impacts of the alternatives is 

provided below. Exhibit 6-11 provides a more detailed summary on impacts of each alternative on 

each environmental resource category. 

• Land Use Impacts: Alternative 125 would require the assembly and acquisition of public 

and private lands along the 280-mile Albany-to-Buffalo corridor. An estimated two to 

three thousand acres of land would be needed. Notwithstanding efforts to minimize adverse 

effects, the construction of an essentially sealed corridor with limited opportunities for 

crossings could be expected to have an impact on community cohesion and large-scale land 

uses which may be bisected by the high-speed rail corridor. If Alternative 125 is selected for 

further consideration, additional location analyses will include avoidance and minimization of 

property impacts and impacts on sensitive land uses. By comparison, property acquisition 

requirements of the other alternatives that follow the existing Empire Corridor would be 

considerably less than that for Alternative 125. Alternative 110 would involve the next greatest 

property displacements, affecting approximately 53 areas in 8 counties. Alternative 90B would 

affect approximately 9 areas in 6 counties. Property displacements with the Base and 

Alternative 90A are anticipated to be minimal. 

• Community and Public Facility Impacts: Alternative 125 has the potential to affect 13 

community/publicly used facilities (including cemeteries, privately owned golf 

courses/golf clubs, and a school ballfield) in 8 counties largely where it extends on new 

right-of-way. If Alternative 125 is advanced, additional location analyses will consider ways to 

avoid or minimize impacts on these publicly accessible facilities. By comparison, Alternative 

110 is projected to have potential effects on 4 community facilities (e.g., fire stations, post 

office) in 1 county; the other alternatives are not expected to have any direct impacts to 

community facilities.

• Historic and Archaeological Resource Impacts/Section 4(f) Uses: Alternatives 90B and 

110 would have the greatest potential to affect historic and cultural resources, with 302 

to 292 archaeological/architectural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for both 

direct and indirect impacts. Alternative 90A is likely to have moderate effects, with 100 

resources within the APE. The Base Alternative would likely have only minor effects, with 26 

resources within the APE. Alternative 125 would largely maintain elevated tracks within the 

existing ROW where it overlaps with the existing Empire Corridor. However, Alternative 125 

would involve greater impacts than the Base Alternative, potentially affecting 123 resources 

within the APE, depending on the footprint for elevated structures that will carry the gradeseparated tracks over the existing tracks. Alternative 125 will be developed along new right-ofway generally away from population centers where most historic structures are found. Due to 

the undeveloped nature of the areas traversed by Alternative 125, historic and archaeological 

resources may not be fully documented. Alternative 125 would also have the greatest potential 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

interaction with and use of tribal land. The Programmatic Agreement (included as Appendix H) 

addresses the process by which FRA and NYSDOT intend to comply with Section 106 for 

undertakings occurring on tribal lands or where adverse effects to historic properties of a 

religious or cultural significance to a tribe occur off tribal land. If this alternative is advanced 

for further consideration in Tier 2, efforts will be made to avoid impacts on historic resources in 

locating the new rail corridor. 

• Parks and Recreational Facilities Impacts/Section 4(f) Uses: Alternative 125 has the 

greatest potential effect on parks and recreational facilities, with 9 such facilities in 5 

counties potentially affected (including an Oneida Nation-owned golf course). If 

Alternative 125 is advanced, the additional location analyses in Tier 2 will avoid or minimize 

impacts on these facilities to the extent practicable. With the possible exception of two 

crossings of the Mohawk River and Erie Canal for Alternatives 90B and 110, only Alternative 

110 would have any other potential effect on recreational facilities, potentially affecting one 

county park.

• Visual Impacts: Alternative 125 would have the greatest potential for adverse visual 

impacts. Alternative 125 would create a new 100-foot-wide railroad right-of-way that would 

be electrified (with overhead catenary) in what are today largely open undeveloped and 

moderately developed areas. Alternative 125 would also create an elevated structure in 

densely populated urban centers (Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo), which would be more 

visible than the at-grade railroad. Both Alternatives 90B and 110 would involve track 

construction extending outside of the right-of-way, which could result in additional clearing and 

property displacements, but which would otherwise result in minor visual effects. The Base 

Alternative is entirely confined to the existing railroad right-of-way, and is expected to have no 

such effects.

• Farmlands Impacts: Alternative 125 would have the most disruptive impact on 

farmland, potentially bisecting and isolating sections of prime farmlands and “farmlands 

of statewide significance” in 12 counties. By comparison, Alternative 110 would affect prime 

farmlands in at least 4 counties and Alternative 90B in at least 3 counties. Alternative 90A has 

only minor effects on farmland, potentially affecting agricultural districts in only 1 county. The 

Base Alternative is confined entirely to the existing railroad right-of-way and is expected to 

have no such effects.

• Impacts on Waterbodies/Rivers: Alternative 125 would have the greatest potential for 

impacts on waterbodies, potentially affecting 361 such resources along Empire Corridor 

West. The Base Alternative would have the least potential for impact on surface water 

resources, potentially affecting 68 crossings. The other alternatives are anticipated to have 

moderate potential for impact relative to the other alternatives, with between 107 to 218 

surface water crossings potentially affected.

• Wetlands Impacts: Alternative 125 would have a the greatest potential for impact on 

wetlands, relative to the other alternatives, with 177 new wetland crossings. Alternatives 

110 and 90B would have a moderate potential for impact, potentially affecting 118 to 137 

wetland crossings. Alternative 90A and the Base Alternative would have a relatively minor 

potential for impact, potentially affecting 54 to 84 wetland crossings, respectively.

Page 6-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Air Quality Impacts: Alternative 125 has the greatest potential benefit to air quality in 

some regions of the corridor, while it has the potential to adversely affect air quality in 

other regions of the corridor (the differences between the areas are a consequence of the 

distribution of on-road versus rail trips). The other alternatives would result in negligible 

changes in regional emissions, with the Base Alternative serving as the basis for comparison. 

While increased rail emissions would not adversely affect local air quality, some very minor 

local benefits may occur near roadways where trips are reduced. Some increases in pollutant 

concentrations may occur near rail stations, increasing from Alternative 90A to 90B, 110, and 

125, which will be subject to further analysis in Tier 2.

• Energy and Greenhouse Gases Impacts: Alternative 125 is likely to require the greatest 

quantity of energy and materials for construction. Thus, it has the greatest potential to 

adversely affect net energy and greenhouse gases (accounting for the energy and GHG 

emissions from construction and reduced on-road emissions). Other alternatives have 

successively lesser adverse impacts. Alternative 90A would have a potential beneficial impact 

starting approximately 20 years after construction.

• Noise/Vibration Impacts: Alternative 125 has the potential for noise impacts in areas where 

no railroads currently operate. In this respect, it is the only alternative to introduce railroad 

noise in areas that are not already experiencing it. With all alternatives, including the Base 

Alternative, potential noise impacts along the Empire Corridor/Niagara Branch are expected to 

be moderate to severe in more urbanized areas, between New York City and Schenectady, 

between Syracuse and Rochester, and between Buffalo and Niagara Falls. Noise impacts are 

also predicted along the three new alignment segments of Alternative 125. There is also a 

potential for vibration impacts along new corridor segments.

6.5. Identification of a Preferred Alternative/Selection of a Final 

Alternative

All reasonable alternatives are under consideration. NYSDOT and FRA will identify a preferred 

alternative after fully evaluating and considering the alternatives' impacts, comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, and comments from the public hearing. 

After public review of and comment on the Tier I Draft EIS, NYSDOT and FRA will review and 

consider the public comments. NYSDOT will make a recommendation regarding selection of the 

preferred alternative to FRA based on all of the information contained within the Tier I Draft EIS 

and the public comments. The preferred alternative will be identified in the Final EIS. After 

issuance of the Final EIS and the 30 day wait period, FRA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) 

naming the selected alternative. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative

Area of 

Evaluation

Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Land Use

No impacts. No impacts. EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for 9 areas of land 

use impact in 6 

counties. 

EC South: No 

impacts. 

EC West: Potential 

for 53 areas of land 

use impact in 8 

counties. 

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts.

New Alignment: 

Potential for 1 land 

use conversion 

required in EC 

South. Potential for 

extensive land use 

conversions of two 

to three thousand 

acres, including 

acquisition of 

structures, in 14 

counties in EC West. 

Regional 

Population, 

Employment

and Business 

Districts

Little or no effect on 

population, 

employment and 

business activity.

Potential for minor 

increases in 

population, 

employment and 

business activity 

over the Base 

Alternative 

associated with 

passenger and 

freight service 

improvements. 

Potential for greater 

increases in 

population, 

employment and 

business activity 

over Alternative 

90A, especially in 

vicinity of station 

sites. 

Potential for greater 

increases in 

population, 

employment and 

business activity 

over Alternative 

90B, especially in 

vicinity of station 

sites. 

Potential for 

greatest increases 

in population, 

employment and 

business activity 

over all other 

alternatives, 

especially in vicinity 

of AlbanyRensselaer, 

Syracuse, Rochester 

and Buffalo stations, 

and some stations 

in EC South. 

Because existing 

service with stops 

in Schenectady, 

Amsterdam, Utica, 

and Rome would be 

retained, little or no 

effect on regional 

population, 

employment and 

business districts 

would be expected. 

Environmental 

Justice

(Analysis at 

county and 

major city 

levels)

Disproportionate 

adverse impacts 

unlikely. 

Disproportionate 

adverse impacts 

unlikely. Long term 

benefit to urban 

areas anticipated.

Disproportionate 

adverse impacts 

unlikely. Long term 

benefit to urban 

areas anticipated.

Disproportionate 

adverse impacts 

unlikely. Long term 

benefit to urban 

areas anticipated.

Existing Alignment: 

Disproportionate

adverse impacts 

unlikely. 

New Alignment: 

Disproportionate 

adverse impacts 

unlikely. Long term 

benefit to urban 

areas anticipated.

Community 

and Public 

Facilities

No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 4 

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts. 

New Alignment: No 

impacts in EC South. 

Page 6-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative

Area of 

Evaluation

Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

facilities in 1 

county.

Potential for 

impacts to 13 

facilities in 8 

counties in EC West.

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources/ 

Section 4(f) 

(Analysis of 

previouslyidentified 

resources)

Potential for 

impacts on 26 

archaeological and 

architectural 

resources within 

the direct/indirect 

Area of Potential 

Effect (APE).

Potential for 

impacts to 100 

resources located in 

direct/indirect APE.

Potential for 

impacts to 302 

resources located in 

direct/indirect 

APE.2

Potential for 

impacts to 292 

resources located in 

direct/indirect 

APE.2

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts to 123 

resources located in 

direct/indirect 

APE.195 

Parks and 

Recreational 

Areas/Section 

4(f)

No impacts. No impacts. Potential for 

impacts at crossings 

of the Mohawk 

River and Erie Canal 

will be evaluated in 

Tier 2. 

EC South: No 

impacts. 

EC West: Potential

for impacts at 

crossings of the 

Mohawk River and 

Erie Canal will be 

evaluated in Tier 2. 

Potential for 

impacts to 1 county 

park.

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts.

New Alignment: No 

impacts in EC South. 

Potential for 

impacts to 9 parks 

in 5 counties in EC 

West.

Visual 

Resources

No impacts. No impacts. Potential for 

impacts associated 

with some forest 

clearing, land 

conversions, bridge 

modifications, 

proximity to 

adjoining 

properties. 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with some forest 

clearing, land 

conversions, bridge 

modifications, 

proximity to 

adjoining 

properties. 

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts.

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with new visual 

element, including 

new river/canal 

crossings, forest 

clearings, elevated 

track sections, and 

overhead 

catenaries. Potential 

for impacts 

associated with new 

corridor, including 

forest clearing, land 

conversions, 

proximity to 

adjoining 

properties. 

Farmlands 

No impacts. EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 

Agricultural 

EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 

prime farmlands/

EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential

for impacts to 

prime farmlands/

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts. 

New Alignment: No 

impacts in EC South. 

Potential for 

195/ This is in addition to Alternative 90A impacts along Empire Corridor South and Niagara Branch.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-19

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives 

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative

Area of 

Evaluation

Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Districts in 1 

county. 

Agricultural 

Districts in at least 

3 counties.196

Agricultural 

Districts in 4 

counties.196

impacts to multiple 

prime farmlands, 

farmlands of 

statewide 

significance and 

Agricultural 

Districts in 12 

counties in EC 

West.197

Surface 

Waterbodies 

and 

Watercourses

Approximately 68 

existing surface 

water crossings 

could be modified.

Approximately 107 

existing surface 

water crossings 

could occur.

Approximately 219 

existing surface 

water crossings 

could occur. 

Approximately 218 

existing surface 

water crossings 

could occur. 

New Alignment:

Approximately 248 

new surface water 

crossings on new 

alignment and 113 

crossings on 

existing rail (361 

total) could occur.

Designated 

Wild, Scenic 

and 

Recreational 

Rivers

Three segments of 

the Hudson River 

are listed on the 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory (NRI), but 

no impacts are 

anticipated.

Three segments of 

the Hudson River 

are listed on the 

NRI, but no impacts 

are anticipated. A 

NRI-listed segment 

of the Black Creek 

crosses where a 

third track will be 

added, with 

potential for impact.

Three segments of 

the Hudson River 

are listed on the 

NRI, but no impacts 

are anticipated. A 

NRI-listed segment 

of the Black Creek

crosses where a 

third track will be 

added, with 

potential for impact.

Three segments of 

the Hudson River 

are listed on the 

NRI, but no impacts 

are anticipated. 

Two NRI-listed 

segments of the 

Black Creek crosses 

where a third and 

fourth track will be 

added, with 

potential for impact.

Three segments of 

the Hudson River 

are listed on the 

NRI, but no impacts 

are anticipated.

Navigable 

Waters

EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: 2 existing 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

could be modified, 

with potential for 

impacts. 

EC South: 4 existing 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

could be modified, 

with potential for 

impacts. 

EC West: 1 existing 

crossing over a 

navigable water 

could be modified, 

with potential for 

impacts.

EC South: 4 existing 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

could be modified, 

with potential for 

impacts.

EC West: 11 existing 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

could be modified, 

with potential for 

impacts.

EC South: 4 existing 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

could be modified, 

with potential for

impacts.

EC West: 11 existing 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

could be modified, 

with potential for 

impacts.

New Alignment: 

new Hudson River 

crossing over 

navigable waters 

would occur in EC 

South, with 

potential for 

impacts. 4 new 

crossings over 

navigable waters 

would occur in EC 

West, with potential 

for impacts.

Floodplains

EC South: Minimal 

potential for 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 11 

areas. 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts to flood 

prone areas. 

EC West: Potential 

for floodplain 

impacts in 7 

counties.

EC South: Potential 

for impacts to flood 

prone areas. 

EC West: Potential 

for floodplain in 11 

counties. 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts to flood 

prone areas. 

EC West: Potential 

for floodplain 

impacts in 11 

counties, including 

more encroachment 

than Alternative 

90B.

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts to flood 

prone areas in EC 

South. Potential for 

floodplain impacts 

in 11 counties and 

additional 

unmapped areas in 

3 counties in EC 

West.

196/ This is in addition to Alternative 90A impacts. 197/ This is in addition to Alternative 90A impacts along Empire Corridor South and Niagara Branch.

Page 6-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative

Area of 

Evaluation

Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

Wetlands 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts 

involving 78 

existing crossings. 

EC West: Potential 

for impacts 

involving 6 

crossings. 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts 

involving 39 new 

and existing 

crossings.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts 

involving 15 

existing crossings.

EC South: Potential 

for impacts 

involving 39 new 

and existing 

crossings.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts 

involving track 

addition at 118 

crossings. 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts 

involving 39 new 

and existing 

crossings.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts 

involving track 

addition at 137 

crossings. 

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts involving 

177 new crossings.

Coastal 

Resources

EC South: Work 

will occur within 

the coastal zone. Of 

the six SASSs and 11 

SCFWHs, no 

impacts are 

anticipated.

EC West: Limited 

work within coastal 

zone. 

EC South: Work 

will occur within 

the coastal zone. 

Potential for 

impacts in EC South 

associated with new 

bridge construction 

in coastal zone. Of 

the six SASSs and 11 

SCFWHs, no 

impacts are 

anticipated.

EC West: Limited 

work within coastal 

zone.

EC South: Work 

will occur within 

the coastal zone. 

Potential for 

impacts in EC South 

associated with new 

bridge construction 

in coastal zone. Of 

the six SASSs and 11 

SCFWHs, no 

impacts are 

anticipated.

EC West: 

Bridgework has 

potential to affect 

one coastal area 

and SCFWH.

EC South: Work 

will occur within 

the coastal zone. 

Potential for 

impacts in EC South 

associated with new 

bridge construction 

in coastal zone. Of 

the six SASSs and 11 

SCFWHs, no 

impacts are 

anticipated. 

EC West: 

Bridgework has 

potential to affect 

one coastal area 

and SCFWH.

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts. 

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts in EC South 

associated with new 

bridge construction 

in coastal zone. 

EC West: 

Bridgework has 

potential to affect 

one coastal area 

and SCFWH.

Aquifers

No impacts. EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for minimal impacts 

to primary aquifer 

depending upon 

construction and 

excavation depths.

EC South: No 

impacts. 

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 

primary and/or 

principal aquifers 

underlying 9 

counties.

EC South: No 

impacts. 

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 

primary and/or 

principal aquifers 

underlying 9 

counties. 

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts. 

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts to principal 

aquifer in EC South 

depending on new 

bridge construction 

and excavation 

depths. Potential 

for impacts in EC 

West to primary 

and/or principal 

aquifers underlying 

13 counties. 

General 

Ecology and 

Wildlife 

Resources/ 

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species

EC South: No 

impacts.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts to 1 

conservation area 

and protected 

resources/species. 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts to 

essential fish 

habitat (EFH), 

aquatic species and 

habitat associated 

with Livingston 

Avenue Bridge 

replacement. 

EC West: Potential 

for impacts at 2 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts to EFH, 

aquatic species and 

habitat associated 

with Livingston 

Avenue Bridge 

replacement.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts at 7+ 

locations, including 

national natural 

EC South: Potential 

for impacts to EFH, 

aquatic species and 

habitat associated 

with Livingston 

Avenue Bridge 

replacement.

EC West: Potential 

for impacts at 21+ 

locations, including 

2 NNLs, bird 

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts to EFH in 

EC South. Potential 

for impacts to 118 

species, 107 

significant natural 

communities, 6 bird 

conservation areas, 

and 2 NNLs in EC 

West associated 

with habitat 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative

Area of 

Evaluation

Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

locations associated 

with vegetation 

removal. 

landmark (NNL)/ 

bird conservation 

area, 9 significant 

natural 

communities, 64+ 

protected 

resources/species. 

conservation area, 7 

significant natural 

communities, 64+ 

protected 

resources/

species.

conversion and 

fragmentation.

Critical 

Environmental 

Areas

No impacts 

anticipated.

No impacts 

anticipated.

No impacts 

anticipated.

No impacts 

anticipated.

Existing Alignment:

No impacts 

anticipated.

New Alignment:

No impacts 

anticipated.

Air Quality

Baseline condition. Potential for 

reduction in all 

pollutants other 

than NOx. The 

minor increase in 

NOx would conform 

to regulations.

Potential for greater 

reduction in all 

pollutants other 

than NOx over 

Alternative 90A. 

The minor increase 

in NOx would 

conform to 

regulations.

Potential for greater 

reduction in all 

pollutants other 

than NOx over 

Alternative 90B. 

The minor increase 

in NOx would 

conform to 

regulations.

Existing Alignment: 

No effect.

New Alignment: 

Potential for greater 

reduction in all 

pollutants other 

than NOx over 

Alternative 110. 

The minor increase 

in NOx would 

conform to 

regulations.

Energy and 

Climate 

Change

Baseline condition. Potential for net 

decrease in annual 

energy use and 

greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions 

over Base 

Alternative. 

Potential for greater 

decrease in annual 

energy use and GHG 

emissions over 

Alternative 90A by 

approximately 20%. 

Requires smallest 

quantity of energy 

and materials for 

construction, 

resulting in net gain 

in short term (20 

years).

Potential for greater 

decrease in annual 

energy use and GHG 

emissions over 

Alternative 90B by 

approximately 2%. 

Requires second 

largest quantity of 

energy and 

materials for 

construction, 

resulting in net gain 

in short term.

Potential for greater 

decrease over 110 

in annual energy 

use (by 42%) and 

GHG emissions (by 

27%). Requires 

greatest quantity of 

energy and 

materials for 

construction, with 

largest net gain.

Noise and 

Vibration

Potential noise 

impacts in more 

urbanized areas, 

between New York 

City and 

Schenectady, 

between Syracuse 

and Rochester, and 

between Buffalo 

and Niagara Falls.

Potential for 

vibration impacts 

along new corridor 

segments.

Potential noise 

impacts in more 

urbanized areas, 

between New York 

City and 

Schenectady, 

between Syracuse 

and Rochester, and 

between Buffalo 

and Niagara Falls

Potential for 

vibration impacts 

along new corridor 

segments.

Potential noise 

impacts in more 

urbanized areas, 

between New York 

City and 

Schenectady, 

between Syracuse 

and Rochester, and 

between Buffalo 

and Niagara Falls

Potential for 

vibration impacts 

along new corridor 

segments.

Potential noise 

impacts in more 

urbanized areas, 

between New York 

City and 

Schenectady, 

between Syracuse 

and Rochester, and 

between Buffalo 

and Niagara Falls

Potential for 

vibration impacts 

along new corridor 

segments.

Existing Alignment: 

Potential noise 

impacts in more 

urbanized areas, 

between New York 

City and 

Schenectady, 

between Syracuse 

and Rochester, and 

between Buffalo 

and Niagara Falls

New Alignment: 

Potential for noise 

impacts on new 

alignment segments 

and elevated 

Page 6-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 6-11—Tier 1 Environmental Impact Assessment by Alternative

Area of 

Evaluation

Alternatives

Base 90A 90B 110 125

sections. Potential 

for vibration 

impacts along 

length of new 

alignment.

Contaminated 

and Hazardous 

Materials

No impacts 

anticipated for track 

improvements. 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with station 

improvements. 

No impacts 

anticipated for track 

improvements. 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with station 

improvements and 

bridge replacement. 

No impacts 

anticipated for track 

improvements. 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with station 

improvements, 

bridge replacement, 

new ROW in 7 

locations, and new 

structures in urban 

areas.

No impacts 

anticipated for track 

improvements. 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with station 

improvements, 

bridge replacement, 

new ROW in 18 

locations, and new 

and existing 

structures in urban 

areas.

Existing Alignment: 

No impacts 

anticipated for track 

improvements. 

Potential for impact 

associated with 

station 

improvements. 

 

New Alignment: 

Potential for 

impacts associated 

with new bridge 

construction in EC 

South and extensive 

property 

acquisitions in EC 

West, including 

numerous 

structures.

Notes: 1. EC South – Empire Corridor South; EC West – Empire Corridor West 

 2. The potential areas of impact described in this Tier 1 EIS are preliminary and are based on GIS resource data. The actual extent of impact 

will be determined during Tier 2, following more detailed investigation and design.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 6-23

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 6 – Comparison of Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 6-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

7. Comments and Coordination

7.1. Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the public involvement and agency coordination activities 

that have been completed to date as well as the process in which all activities have been carried out. 

Also covered in this chapter are the anticipated future public involvement and agency coordination 

activities that are planned during completion of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Tier 

1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The public involvement and agency coordination task of the program is charged with inviting 

participation by, and coordinating with, the appropriate federals, state, and local agencies as well as 

the public in an effort to engage and inform these stakeholders throughout the environmental 

review process. The purpose of the public involvement program is to educate stakeholders about 

the program and the process in which the program is being undertaken, and to serve as a 

communication conduit for the exchange of information on program issues and concerns. The 

public involvement program is designed to be an inclusive and transparent process that adheres to 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The program’s public involvement program is a multifaceted program that utilizes several mediums 

to engage and inform the public and other key stakeholders. NYSDOT developed a Public 

Involvement Plan (PIP) for the program, and it outlines the public involvement program and 

identifies key contacts from targeted groups such as government agencies and organizations, public 

offices, non-government organizations, special interest groups, civic and business groups, present 

and potential riders/users, the media and the general public. In addition, the PIP identified NEPA 

cooperating and participating agencies (refer to Exhibit 7-6) that were invited for involvement in 

the program. The PIP also outlines how public involvement activities will be linked to key program 

milestones and identifies the mediums to be used in engaging program stakeholders. 

The public involvement activities outlined in the PIP and carried out at key program milestones 

have been planned and developed in close collaboration with program partners including staff from 

the lead agencies as well as input from cooperating and participating agencies. 

7.2. Program Identifier 

At the program’s commencement, a logo was developed to give the program a unique and 

consistent identity. The program logo (refer to Exhibit 7-1) has been prominently featured on all 

forms of program communication with the public and at public meetings. The program logo 

incorporates the official program name along with the name of the program sponsor, the New York 

State Department of Transportation. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-1

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

Exhibit 7-1—Program Logo

7.3. Public Outreach

7.3.1. Stakeholder Mailing List

A stakeholder mailing list has been developed and maintained in a database created for the 

program. The stakeholder database includes contact information of all interested stakeholders as 

well as representatives from all the agencies and organizations involved in the program. The 

stakeholder database is updated on an ongoing basis as the program progresses and as additional 

interested parties request to be added to the mailing list. Currently, the stakeholder database 

contains approximately 500 contacts. 

7.3.2. Media Outreach 

The program includes a media outreach plan which includes preparing press releases, meeting 

notice ads and general program related outreach releases for dissemination by local media 

channels in each of the six major population centers along the program corridor. In addition, press 

briefings have occurred prior to each of the public scoping meetings in an effort to promote public 

awareness of the program and encourage public participation and input. The press briefings also 

provided the media with the opportunity to interview members of the program team. 

7.3.3. Newsletters

Since the onset of the program, NYSDOT has produced and distributed three informational 

newsletters to stakeholders at key program milestones. The first newsletter provided a general 

overview of the program’s purpose and advertised the public scoping meetings in an effort to 

promote attendance at the scoping meetings. The second newsletter provided an overview of the 

comments received at the public scoping meetings and throughout the duration of the scoping 

period and presented initial analysis and findings from the scoping period. The third newsletter 

provided an overview of the alternatives development and screening process and identified the 

alternatives being advanced for detailed evaluation. Program newsletters are distributed to all 

contacts listed in the stakeholder mailing list and uploaded to the program website. 

Page 7-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.3.4. Program Website 

The program website (refer to Exhibit 7-2) was developed at the onset of the program to provide 

interested parties continuous access to information about the program. The website is accessed on 

NYSDOTs website at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor. Throughout the course of the 

program, interested parties have been encouraged to visit the program website to learn more about 

the program and receive the latest information and updates. 

Exhibit 7-2—Program Web Site Home Page

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-3

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

The program website includes a general overview of the program, the process in which the 

program is being carried out, and an explanation of the program’s purpose and need and goals and 

objectives. The website contains several links where interested parties can learn more about the 

program by reading the latest issue of the program newsletter, reviewing an online briefing about 

the program and the alternatives under analysis, watching an informational video about the 

program and exploring the interactive alternatives table which is an innovative web-based public 

outreach tool that was developed to store and display all the latest program related information in 

an easy to use and engaging format. The program website also contains information pertaining to 

schedule, upcoming and past public outreach activities, and frequently asked questions about the 

program. In addition, several program reports and documents as well as past issues of the program 

newsletter have been archived on the website and are available for download. The program 

website also has a page dedicated to informing interested parties how they may contact a member 

of the program team, submit a comment or question and sign up on the program mailing list to 

receive upcoming program information. 

The public involvement materials posted on the program website were specifically developed to 

engage and inform as many stakeholders and members of the public as possible, given that the 

Empire Corridor stretches across New York State - a distance of 463 miles. The website allows for 

stakeholders to receive the latest program related information even if they are unable to travel to 

attend a live meeting in person. The website received over 3,000 unique hits within the first couple 

months of being launched. To date, the website has been viewed by nearly 9,000 unique visitors.

7.4. Public Scoping Process

7.4.1. Public Scoping Meetings

Given the length of the Empire Corridor, six public scoping meetings were held in major population 

centers located along the corridor. As shown in Exhibit 7-3, scoping meetings were held in the 

following cities: New York City, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. 

The public scoping meetings were conducted in an open house format from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at each 

location. Attendees were asked to sign-in and were handed a copy of the program newsletter and a 

comment form and encouraged to view an informational video on the program which played on a 

continuous loop. At the end of the video, attendees were encouraged to view easel mounted display

boards that presented program information and to interact with members of the program team. 

Meeting attendees were encouraged to fill out a comment card and leave it in one of the many drop 

boxes located at each public meeting.

The public scoping meetings were advertised to the general public in accordance with the 

program’s media outreach plan. Meeting notice ads and press releases were produced and sent to 

various media outlets in each of the six locations along the length of the corridor where public

scoping meetings were held. 

In addition to the six public scoping meetings held in different and geographically disbursed cities 

located along the Empire Corridor, an online scoping briefing was created and posted on the 

program website for the benefit of interested parties that were unable to attend a public scoping 

meeting in person. The online scoping briefing contained the same information presented at the 

public scoping meetings in a downloadable electronic format. The online scoping briefing was a 

Page 7-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 7-3—Scoping Meetings

Meeting Date Meeting Location Estimated 

Attendance

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Connecticut Street Armory

184 Connecticut Street

Buffalo, New York 14213

81

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Empire Expo Center (Syracuse 

Fairgrounds)

581 Fair Boulevard

Syracuse, New York 13209

28

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Sand Creek Middle School

329 Sand Creek Road

Albany, New York 12205

86

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Moynihan Station

380 West 33rd Street

New York, New York 10001

34

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Hotel Utica

102 Lafayette Street

Utica, New York 13502

23

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Monroe Community College

1000 East Henrietta Road

Rochester, New York 14623

87

TOTAL: 339

very successful public outreach tool that was visited by 231 unique individuals during the scoping 

period.

During the program scoping process in 2010, considerable interest was expressed by the public and 

other program stakeholders in the potential for higher speed alternatives. These included a 160 

mph alternative representing the practical upper limit of electrified dynamic tilt trains, such as the 

Amtrak Acela; and a 220 mph alternative representing the practical upper limit of high-speed rail 

operations seen in France, Germany, Spain, Japan, and China. In response to this, a range of higher 

speed alternatives was examined according to the same metrics as the other alternatives. 

7.4.2. Public Scoping Comments

The public scoping meetings held during the fall of 2010 solicited a total of 102 public comments 

that were collected and recorded during the scoping period. Several options for submitting 

comments were available to the public, which included: direct submission at the public scoping 

meetings, standard mail, e-mail, through the program website and via telephone. 

Based on the public comments received during the scoping period, the majority (70%) of 

commenters expressed support for the program, as illustrated in Exhibit 7-4. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-5

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

Exhibit 7-4—Nature of Public Comments

The public comments received at the public scoping meetings as well as from email, standard mail 

and phone, were documented and categorized to provide a general summary of the comments 

received during the public scoping process. The comments were grouped into 12 different 

categories based on the subject of the comment. The 12 categories include: general, alternatives, 

regional connections, stations, operations, alignment, speed, intermodal, vehicles, scoping meetings, 

safety and ridership. It is important to note that a comment made by one individual may be broken 

out into multiple categories; numerous comments addressed more than one subject category. 

Exhibit 7-5 illustrates the breakdown of comments received by category from public scoping efforts 

conducted throughout the entire corridor. 

The majority of comments received were categorized as the following: general, alternatives, 

regional connection, stations and operations. The remaining comment categories of alignment, 

speed, intermodal, vehicles, scoping meetings, safety and ridership accounted for a much lower 

percentage of comments received from public outreach efforts and thus were combined to form the 

“other” category in Exhibit 7-5, for the purpose of clarity. The “other” category accounts for 28 

percent of comments received from the public scoping process throughout the entire corridor. The 

general comment category is the single largest category of comments received from public outreach 

efforts at 23 percent. Comments categorized as general do not pertain to any of the other comment 

categories and are broad in nature. An example of a general comment may include a personal 

position statement regarding the program such as an individual’s declaration of support toward the 

program’s goals and objectives. 

The alternatives and regional connection comment categories accounted for the second largest 

categories of comments received with each representing 13 percent of the total at the corridor 

level. In general, these comments were in regard to proposed alignment alternatives or the desire 

for increased regional connections. The stations category represented the next largest category of 

comments followed by operations at 12 and 11 percent respectively. The majority of these 

comments highlighted the desire for local station improvements with multimodal linkages.

70%

20%

10%

Supportive

Neutral

Nonsupportive

Page 7-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 7-5—Summary of Public Comments by Category

The public scoping period was successful at soliciting public comments. Public comments have 

been and will continue to be collected, recorded and considered throughout the duration of the Tier 

1 EIS.

7.5. Stakeholder Coordination

7.5.1. Agency Coordination 

At the onset of the program, the appropriate federal, state, regional and local agencies were 

identified as having a role and/or interest in the program. More than 37 formal letters of invitation 

were sent by NYSDOT and FRA to agencies identified as NEPA cooperating and/or participating 

agencies. The role and responsibilities of cooperating and/or participating Agencies are set forth 

under the environmental review provisions of Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations (40 CFR 1508.5). Given the magnitude and complexity of the program, the lead 

agencies, FRA and NYSDOT, are using a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28, in 

completing of the environmental review of the program. The initial phase of the program, Tier 1, 

addresses broad service-level issues and proposals for improving intercity passenger rail service 

along the corridor. 

The role of the cooperating agencies is outlined by CEQ 40 CFR 1508.5 whereby a cooperating 

agency is any federal agency, other than a lead agency, that has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project 

alternative. A state or local agency of similar qualifications or, when the effects are on lands of 

tribal interest, a Native American tribe, may, by agreement with the lead agencies, also become a 

23%

13%

13% 12%

11%

28%

General

Alternatives

Regional

Connection

Stations

Operations

Other

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-7

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination 

Page 7-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

cooperating	 agency.	 	 The	 responsibilities	 of	 cooperating	 agencies	 include	 providing	 input	

throughout	the	entire	duration	of	the	program,	participating	in	meetings,	reviewing	and	providing	

comments	on	program	progress	and	reviewing	and	commenting	on	the	Tier	1	Draft	EIS	and	the	Tier	

1	 Final	 EIS.	 	 The	 actions	 proposed	 by	 the	 program	 may	 require	 a	 permit	 or	 approval	 from	 a	

cooperating	 agency.	 	 Cooperating	 agencies	 are	 also	 participating	 agencies,	 and	 all	 references	 to	

participating	agencies	include	cooperating	agencies.			

The	role	of	participating	agencies,	a	federal,	state,	tribal	or	local	government	agency	that	may	have	

an	interest	in	the	program,	includes	participation	in	the	NEPA	process,	providing	input	throughout	

the	entire	duration	of	the	program	and	identifying	any	issues	or	concerns	regarding	the	program.		

According	 to	 Section	 6002	 of	 SAFETEA‐LU,	 participating	 agencies	 are	 responsible	 to	 identify,	 as	

early	as	practicable,	any	issues	of	concern	regarding	the	program’s	potential	impacts.		The	program	

may	impact	 resources	 that	 participating	agencies	are	involved	in	managing.	 	 Exhibit	 7‐6	lists	 the	

cooperating	and	participating	agencies	invited	to	be	involved	in	the	program.				

The	roles	and	responsibilities	of	cooperating	and	participating	agencies	are	similar,	but	cooperating	

agencies	 have	a	 higher	 degree	 of	authority,	 responsibility,	and	involvement	in	 the	environmental	

review	 process.	 	A	 distinguishing	 feature	 of	a	 cooperating	agency	is	 that	 the	 CEQ	 regulations	 (40	

CFR	 Section	 1501.6)	 permit	 a	 cooperating	 agency	 to	 "assume on request of the lead agency

responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analyses including portions of

the environmental impact statement concerning which the cooperating agency has special expertise."		

An	 additional	 distinction	 is	 that,	 pursuant	 to	 40	 CFR	 1506.3,	 "a cooperating agency may adopt

without recirculation the environmental impact statement of a lead agency when, after an

independent review of the statement, the cooperating agency concludes that its comments and

suggestions have been satisfied."	 	 This	 provision	 is	 particularly	 important	 to	 permitting	 agencies,	

such	as	 the	U.S.	Army	Corps	of	Engineers,	who,	as	cooperating	agencies,	routinely	adopt	U.S.	DOT	

environmental	documents."	

7.5.2. Empire Project Advisory Committee (EPAC)   

NYSDOT	 formed	a	project	advisory	committee,	 the	Empire	Project	Advisory	Committee	(EPAC)	 to	

help	shape	and	guide	decision	making	throughout	the	environmental	review	process.		The	purpose	

of	the	EPAC	is	to	create	a	forum	to	hold	meetings	with	representatives	from	key	agencies,	statewide	

government	 organizations,	 major	 railroads,	 metropolitan	 planning	 organizations	 and	 other	 key	

stakeholders.	 	 An	 invitation	 letter	 was	 sent	 to	 key	 stakeholders	 identified	 as	 having	 a	 potential	

interest	 or	 role	 in	 the	 program.	 	 The	 letter	 formally	 invited	 involvement	 in	 the	 program,	

membership	 in	 the	 program’s	 advisory	 committee	 and	 attendance	 at	 the	 first	 agency	 scoping	

meeting.	 	 The	 EPAC	 also	 serves	 as	 a	 communication	 conduit	 whereby	 members	 can	 share	 the	

program’s	progress	with	their	constituents.		Presently,	the	EPAC	is	comprised	of	47	unique	agencies	

as	listed	in	Exhibit	7‐7.	

To	date,	four	EPAC	meetings	have	been	held	in	an	effort	to	seek	input	and	feedback	as	the	program	

progresses	 through	 the	 environmental	 review	 process.	 	 The	 first	 EPAC	 meeting	 presented	 an	

overview	of	the	program	along	with	the	program’s	goals	and	objectives.		The	meeting	was	held	on	

October	 18,	 2010	at	 the	 Capital	District	Transportation	 Committee	 (CDTC)	Office	in	Albany,	New	

York	 with	 approximately	 40	 persons	 in	 attendance.	 	 The	 second	 EPAC	 meeting	 presented	

preliminary	findings	and	gathered	input	from	EPAC	members	and	addressed	questions	and		

	 	
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 7-6—Agency Engagement

Agency Reason for Involvement Responsibility

Amtrak – National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation

Operates passenger service along the 

Empire Corridor

Invited 

Cooperating

United States (U.S.) Fish & Wildlife 

Service

Consultation regarding effects on aquatic 

and terrestrial wildlife as well as 

coordination with threatened and 

endangered species under Section 7 of the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act 

Invited

Cooperating 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region II

Regulatory concerns include General 

Conformity under the U.S. Clean Air Act and 

Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act 

Accepted 

Cooperating 

Federal Highway Administration Oversight of the Federal Highway system in 

the U.S.

Accepted

Cooperating

Federal Transit Administration Oversight of passenger railroads in the U.S. Accepted

Cooperating

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Permitting responsibility under Section 404 

of the U.S. Clean Water Act and permitting 

responsibility under Section 10 of the U.S. 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Invited

Cooperating

National Marine Fisheries Service

Consultation regarding proposed 

alternatives relative to ecological effects on 

coastal waters 

Invited

Cooperating

U.S. Coast Guard Permitting administration of Section 9 of the 

U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act 

Accepted

Cooperating

New York State (NYS) Department of 

Environmental Conservation

Permitting responsibility under Section 401 

Water Quality Certification, and the State’s 

Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands regulatory 

program and Article 15 Protection of Waters 

regulatory program

Invited

Cooperating

NYS Department of State Consistency with the State’s Coastal Zone 

Management Plan

Invited

Cooperating 

NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & 

Historic Preservation

Oversight office for resources including 

Section 4(f) and Section 106 resources

Accepted 

Cooperating

National Park Service Responsible for oversight of National Parks Invited

Cooperating 

NYS Historic Preservation Office

Coordinating effects determination for 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Invited 

Cooperating 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

Consultation regarding floodplains and 

modifications to existing floodplains 

Invited

Participating 

Metro-North Railroad Major railroad owner/operator in the 

Empire Corridor 

Invited

Participating 

NYS Canal Corporation Responsible for the operation of the canal 

system 

Invited

Participating 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-9

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

Exhibit 7-6—Agency Engagement

Agency Reason for Involvement Responsibility

Capital District Transportation 

Committee

Transportation planning organization for 

the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan 

area 

Accepted

Participating 

Genesee Transportation Council Transportation planning organization for 

the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region 

Accepted

Participating 

Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional 

Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for 

the Erie and Niagara counties 

Invited

Participating 

Herkimer-Oneida Counties 

Transportation Study

Transportation planning organization for 

the Herkimer and Oneida counties 

Invited

Participating 

Orange County Transportation 

Council

Transportation planning organization for 

Orange County 

Invited

Participating 

New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for 

New York City, Long Island and the lower 

Hudson Valley 

Invited

Participating 

Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County 

Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for 

Dutchess County 

Invited

Participating 

Syracuse Metropolitan 

Transportation Council 

Transportation planning organization for 

Onondaga County and small portions of 

Madison and Oswego Counties 

Invited

Participating 

Ulster County Transportation Council 

Transportation planning organization for 

the Kingston Urbanized area as well as a 

portion of the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh 

Urbanized Transportation Management Area 

Invited

Participating 

Capital District Transportation 

Authority (CDTA) 

Responsible for transportation connections 

in the Albany-Schenectady-Troy 

metropolitan area 

Accepted

Participating 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (MTA) 

Responsible for transportation connections 

in the New York City, Long Island and lower 

Hudson Valley 

Invited

Participating 

Niagara Frontier Transportation 

Authority (NFTA) 

Responsible for transportation connections 

in the Buffalo Niagara region 

Invited

Participating 

Central New York Regional 

Transportation Authority (CENTRO)

Responsible for transportation connections 

in the central New York community 

Invited

Participating 

Rochester Genesee Regional 

Transportation Authority (RGRTA)

Responsible for transportation connections 

in Monroe, Genesee, Livingston, Orleans, 

Wayne, Wyoming and Seneca Counties 

Invited

Participating 

Erie County Department of 

Environment and Planning 

Responsible for environmental oversight in 

Erie County 

Accepted

Participating 

NYC Mayor’s Office of Environmental 

Coordination 

Responsible for environmental oversight in 

New York City 

Invited

Participating 

NYC Parks and Recreation Responsible for parks and recreation areas 

in New York City 

Invited

Participating

NYC Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Responsible for environmental oversight in 

New York City 

Invited

Participating 

Page 7-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit 7-7—EPAC Member Agencies

TYPE OF AGENCY AGENCY

Federal Agencies • Federal Railroad Administration 

• Federal Highway Administration

• United States Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• Federal Transit Administration 

• National Park Service

• National Marine Fisheries Service 

• US Fish & Wildlife Service 

• US Department of Interior

• US Coast Guard

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

State Agencies • NYS Department of Transportation

• NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

• NYS Department of State 

• NYS Empire State Development Corporation

• NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation

• State of New York, Office of the Governor

• NYS Thruway Authority

• NYS Canal Corporation

• NYS Historic Preservation Office 

Local Agencies • Erie County Department of Environmental Planning

• New York City Mayors Office of Environmental Coordination

• New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

• NYC Department of Environmental Protection

Transportation 

Agencies/MPOs

• NYS Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

• Capital District Transportation Committee

• Genesee Transportation Council 

• Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council

• Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study 

• Orange County Transportation Council 

• New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

• Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council

• Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council 

• Ulster County Transportation Council 

• Capital District Transportation Authority

• Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

• Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority

• Central New York Regional Transportation Authority

Railroads • CSX Transportation, Inc.

• Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation

• Metro-North Railroad 

• Canadian Pacific Railroad

• Finger Lakes Railroad

Rail Transportation Groups • High Speed Rail Coalition

• Empire State Passenger Association

• Railroads of New York 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

comments. The second EPAC meeting was held on March 21, 2011 at the NYSDOT Main Office in 

Albany, New York. Approximately 30 EPAC members participated in the second meeting. The third 

EPAC meeting was held on March 8, 2012 at the NYSDOT main office in Albany, New York. 

Approximately 37 EPAC members participated in the third meeting which provided the advisory 

committee with an update on the program’s progress including an overview of the alternatives 

development and screening process. The fourth EPAC meeting was held on March 4, 2013. The 

focus of this meeting was on the alternatives evaluations and the economic benefits of the program. 

All four EPAC meetings included a webinar option for EPAC members to participate in the meeting 

remotely if they were unable to travel to attend the meetings in person. 

7.5.3. Program Partners Involvement

In addition to the EPAC, the program team has provided two of the program’s key partners, the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation - Amtrak and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) with 

briefings on the status of the alternatives development phase of the program. These briefings 

provided both Amtrak and CSXT with an opportunity to individually view a presentation on the 

range of alternatives under consideration and provide feedback. Feedback from these key program 

partners is being taken into consideration as the program progresses.

7.5.4. Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes and 

Consulting Parties Pursuant to the National Historic 

Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates that federal agencies 

consider the effect of their actions on any properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and afford the federal Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Section 

101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA requires the lead federal agency to consult with any Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties 

that may be affected by the undertaking. The lead federal agency shall ensure that consultation in 

the Section 106 process provides the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization a reasonable 

opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and 

evaluation of properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate 

its views on the undertaking’s effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of 

adverse effects. Section 106 also requires consultation with consulting parties, which in addition to 

SHPO, ACHP, and federally recognized Indian tribes/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) 

or Native Hawaiian organizations, includes local governments, and other individuals and 

organizations with a demonstrated interest in the program, whose participation is subject to 

approval by the responsible federal agency, as described in 36 CFR 800.2. The lead federal agency, 

in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and appropriate consulting 

parties, must determine whether a proposed action would have any adverse effects on the 

characteristics of a property that qualify it for the NR. 

Page 7-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

Federally Recognized Tribes

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the lead federal agency, FRA, in consultation with NYSDOT and 

SHPO, identified federally recognized tribes for outreach under Section 106 of NHPA. The tribes 

were identified on the basis of previously identified geographic areas of interest for Section 106 

consultation commonly used by NYSDOT and SHPO. Tribal status and contact information on file 

with the Bureau of Indian Affairs was also consulted as part of the identification process. On May 3, 

2011, FRA sent letters to the following federally recognized tribes inviting them to participate in 

Section 106 consultation: 

• Cayuga Nation, 

• Seneca Nation of Indians, 

• Tonawanda Seneca Nation, 

• Onondaga Nation, 

• Oneida Indian Nation, 

• Tuscarora Indian Nation, 

• Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of the Mohican Nation, 

• Delaware Nation, 

• Shinnecock Nation, 

• St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 

• Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma. 

Replies were received from the Mohican Nation, the Oneida Nation, and the Seneca Nation. All of

these tribal nations expressed their interest in the program and their desire to participate in 

consultation on the program in accordance with Section 106 of NHPA.

On May 4, 2012, NYSDOT invited all of the federally-recognized tribes listed above (and one 

additional federally-recognized tribe: the Delaware Tribe of Indians) to an information-gathering 

meeting in Rochester, New York, on May 30, 2012. At the meeting, the program sponsors presented 

an overview of the program, the proposed Section 106 methodology and the preliminary program 

APE, and took comments from the tribes. At the request of several of the tribes that participated in 

the May 30, 2012 meeting, maps of the alternative alignments showing the approximate locations of 

previously identified archaeological sites were sent to the tribes. On November 21, 2012, NYSDOT 

on behalf of FRA sent letters to each of the tribes and SHPO describing and illustrating the 

boundaries of the proposed APE for their review and comment. In response to comments provided 

by the Oneida Nation to FRA and NYSDOT in a letter dated December 14, 2012, FRA and NYSDOT 

engaged in additional correspondence and a face-to-face meeting (April 18, 2013) with the Oneida 

Nation. 

On May 2, 2013, FRA and NYSDOT held a meeting to provide project information to the federallyrecognized tribes and give them an opportunity to provide comments. On July 26 2013, the Draft 

Programmatic Agreement was transmitted to the federally recognized tribes and consulting parties 

for review and comment. The deadline for comment was listed as August 27, 2013. In a letter 

dated August 13, 2013, FRA received a letter from the Oneida Indian Nation requesting a 30-day 

extension to provide comments on the Draft Programmatic Agreement. This was granted by the 

FRA. In advance of the extended deadline for comments, a teleconference meeting was held on 

September 17, 2013 with FRA, NYSDOT, and the Oneida Indian Nation. As a result of this meeting, 

FRA revised the Draft Programmatic Agreement and transmitted it to the Oneida Indian Nation on 

September 26, 2013. FRA coordinated with Oneida Nation in developing the Draft PA, included in 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

Appendix H.

Other Consulting Parties

In addition to consultation with federally-recognized tribal nations, FRA and NYSDOT have engaged 

in a parallel process of coordination with consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(3) 

through (5) and 800.3(f). Potential consulting parties for the Tier 1 process were identified by FRA 

and NYSDOT in consultation with SHPO based on the parties demonstrated interest in broad, 

corridor-wide, or regional-level aspects of the proposed undertaking. In addition to the SHPO and 

ACHP, the list of potential consulting parties included the following non-federally recognized tribes 

and state or region-wide preservation organizations: 

• Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs,

• Unkechaug Nation,

• Preservation League of New York State, 

• Hudson River Valley Greenway, 

• Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor,

• Preservation Buffalo Niagara, 

• Landmark Society of Western New York, 

• Preservation Association of Western New York.

A total of three parties responded expressing interest in participating as consulting parties: the 

Preservation League of New York State; the National Park Service Erie Canal National Heritage 

Corridor; and Preservation Buffalo Niagara. FRA subsequently approved the consulting party status 

of these three entities. On May 2, 2013, FRA and NYSDOT held a meeting to provide program 

information to the consulting parties and give them an opportunity to provide comments. 

Representatives from the Preservation League of New York State and the Erie Canal National 

Heritage Corridor attended. In June 2013, the Draft Programmatic Agreement was transmitted to 

the consulting parties for review and comment. The deadline for comment was listed as August 27, 

2013. In a letter dated September 20, 2013, the Preservation League of New York State provided 

comments. 

7.5.5. Future Public Involvement and Agency Coordination 

Activities 

During the public comment period for this Tier 1 Draft EIS, public hearings will be held to provide 

the public with an opportunity to comment on the program through formal testimony and written 

comment. The public comments collected and recorded at the public hearings and during the 

public comment period will be considered in selection of a preferred alternative and in preparation 

of the Tier 1 Final EIS. 

The cooperating agencies have been provided with the opportunity to review and comment on the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS. Coordination with the cooperating and participating agencies as well as with the 

EPAC will continue through completion of the Tier 1 Final EIS.

Page 7-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
References Tier 1 Draft EIS 

References

6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 502, Floodplain Management Criteria for 

State Projects (authority Environmental Conservation Law [ECL] section 1-0101, 3-0301 and 

Article 36).

Albany Local Development Corporation. “30th Anniversary, 2009 Annual Report of the Albany Local 

Development Corporation.” Accessed June 20, 2011. 

<http://www.albanyny.org/_files/ALDC%20Annual%20Report%2009.pdf>. 

Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission. “Albany Pine Bush Preserve.” Accessed June 2011. 

<http://www.albanypinebush.org/>. 

Angel, Karen, Daily News. “Walkway Over the Hudson: Poughkeepsie Footbridge Spurs 

Development and Retail Boom.” January 28, 2011. Accessed June 19, 2011.

<http://www.walkway.org/dynamic.php?id=dailynews>. 

Association of American Railroads. National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment 

Study. 2007.

Bergmann Associates. Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study. Prepared for the Genesee 

Transportation Council, March 2002. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.gtcmpo.org/Docs/PlansStudies/Rochester-AmtrakStationRevitalizationStudy.pdf>. 

Cambridge Systematics , Inc. National Rail Freight Infrastructure and Investment Study. Prepared for 

Association of American Railroads, September 2007. Accessed October 5, 2011. 

<http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Files/natl_freight_capacity_study.ashx>. 

Capital District Regional Planning Commission. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for 

the Capital District. September 2009. Accessed September 27, 2011. <http://www.cdrpc.org/2009-

09_CDRPC_CEDS.pdf>. 

Cayuga County Department of Planning and Economic Development. Cayuga County Comprehensive 

Plan. 1997.

Cayuga County Department of Planning and Economic Development. Community Visioning Forum on 

Economic Development. July 29, 2009. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.co.cayuga.ny.us/planning/edcommunity.htm>. 

Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology. High Speed Rail and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. January 2006. Accessed July 8, 2011. 

<http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf>. 

CHA Associates. City of Syracuse Comprehensive Plan 2025. Prepared for the City of Syracuse, 

January 2005.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 1 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS References

The Chazen Companies, and Rapport, Meyers, Whitbeck, Shaw, and Rodenhausen, LLP. City of 

Poughkeepsie Comprehensive Plan. November 1998.

City of Buffalo Office of Strategic Planning. The Queen City in the 21st Century: the Buffalo 

Comprehensive Plan. February 7, 2006.

City of Poughkeepsie. Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, Section III: State and Local Policies. 

Adopted 1998. Accessed June 19, 2011. 

<http://www.cityofpoughkeepsie.com/downloads?dl_cat=24>.

City of Schenectady. City of Schenectady Comprehensive Plan 2020: Reinventing the City of Invention. 

March 2008. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.cityofschenectady.com/pdf/development/citywideplan_feb08.pdf>.

City of Utica. A Sustainable Neighborhood-Based Master Plan: A Neighborhood-Based Process to 

Establish the Vision and Guide for Utica’s Future. July 2011. Accessed September 28, 2011. 

<http://www.uticamasterplan.org/downloads/UMP_FinalDraft.pdf>.

City of Yonkers Planning and Development, Downtown and Waterfront Development. “Projects in 

Progress.” Accessed June 19, 2011. <http://www.yonkersny.gov/index.aspx?page=87>.

Clean Water Act of 1972. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (2002). < http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf>.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44 – Emergency Management and Assistance, Chapter 1 –

FEMA.

Colligan, Mary, NMFS, Letter of Response to HNTB, “Response: High Speed Rail Empire Corridor 

Project PIN S937.51.171,” April 2011.

Conrail Track Chart, CSXT System Tonnage Chart.

“Constitution Marsh Audubon Center & Sanctuary.” Accessed June 2011. 

<http://www.constitutionmarsh.org>.

Council on Environmental Quality. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate 

Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 18, 2010.

County of Schenectady, et. al. Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Plan for Schenectady County. 

March 31, 2010.

CSXT, MNR, and CP track charts.

DeQuinzio, Deb, National Natural Landmarks Program, National Park Service, Northeast Region. 

“Moss Island.” E-mail/personal communication to Addie Kim, HNTB Corporation, March 22, 2011.

Doran, Sandra, USFWS, Letter Response to Joe Grilli, HNTB, “Response: High Speed Rail Empire 

Corridor Project PIN S937.51.171,” April 20, 2011.

Page 2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
References Tier 1 Draft EIS

Economic Development Research Group, Inc. The Economic Impact of High Speed Rail and Cities and 

their Metropolitan Areas. Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors (undated), released June 

2010.

Erie County Commission. Framework for Regional Growth - Erie and Niagara Counties, New York. 

October 2006.

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” President of the United States, 1977.

Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 32, February 11, 1994.

Federal Aviation Administration. NextGEN Implementation Plan. March 2012. 

<http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2012.pdf>.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 2010.

Federal Railroad Administration. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Federal 

Register, Volume 64, No. 101, May 26, 1999.

Federal Railroad Administration. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America: High-Speed Rail Strategic 

Plan. April 2009. Flood Disaster Act of 1973 [42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.] (amended).

Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning. Guidelines and Standards for Assessing TransitSupportive Land Use. May 2004.

Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission. Genesee County Coordinated Public TransitHuman Services Transportation Plan. September 2007. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.co.genesee.mi.us/gcmpcplan/Files/Docs/Coordinated%20Plan/Coordinated%20Plan%20revised%20Oct.%20sfs.pdf>.

Genesee Transportation Council. Long Range Transportation Plan for the Genesee-Finger Lakes 

Region: 2035. June 2011. Assessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.gtcmpo.org/Docs/LRTP/2035/LRTP%202035%20(with%20Appendices).pdf>.

Global Insight. U.S. Metro Economies: GMP – The Engines of America’s Growth, Gross Metropolitan 

Product with Housing Update. Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Council for the 

New American City, June 2008.

Greater Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Transportation Council. 2030 Long-Range Transportation 

Plan. June 22, 2007. 

Greater Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Transportation Council. 2035 Long-Range Transportation 

Plan Update. May 2010. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.gbnrtc.org/fileadmin/content/pdf/Report/2035_Long_Range_Transportation_Plan_F

inal.pdf>.

Hay, Duncan. National Park Service, Northeast Region. “NYSDOT & FRA Compliance (NEPA).” Email/personal communication to Addie Kim, HNTB Corporation, March 25, 2001.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS References

Herkimer-Oneida Counties. Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study Long-Range 

Transportation Plan, Destinations 2010-2030. 2009.

High Speed Rail Task Force. Final Report: Connecting New York’s Future. January 2006.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Regional Plan Association. New Strategies for Regional 

Economic Development, America 2050 Research Seminar: Discussion Papers and Summary. 

Healdsburg, California, March 29-31, 2009. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

<https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1708_928_America%202050%20report%202009.pdf>.

Madison County Planning Department. Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation 

Plan. May 2010. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.healthymadisoncounty.org/MadisonHD/linkeddocs/aztopics/econdev/transport10.pdf>.

Mid-Hudson News, “Walkway, Stairs to enhance Walkway over the Hudson.” September 3, 2010. 

Accessed June 20, 2011. . < http://www.walkway.org/dynamic.php?id=stairs>.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1970).

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. (1968).

National Park Service. “The National Parks: Index 2009-2011, Part 2. Listing of National Park 

System Areas by State.” Accessed March 28, 2011. 

<http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps/nps/part2.htm>.

The NEC Master Plan Working Group. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. May 

2010.

New York Environmental Conservation Law – Article 17, Title 8 – “State Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System.” Accessed September 15, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6308.html>.

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. 2010–2035 NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan –

A Shared Vision for a Shared Future. 2009. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.nymtc.org/rtp/documents/CHAPTER/NYMTC_RTP_Complete.pdf>.

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. Update April 

2011. Accessed September 28, 2011. 

<http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full_report.pd

f>.

New York State. 2009 New York State Energy Plan. December 2009.

New York State Climate Action Council. New York State Climate Action Plan Development Process. 

December 7, 2009. <http://www.nyclimatechange.us/>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements. July 15, 2009.

Page 4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
References Tier 1 Draft EIS

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2003. “Commissioner Policy 29, 

Environmental Justice and Permitting.” March 19, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Critical Environmental Areas.” 

Accessed June 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6184.html>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “DEC Lands.” Accessed June 2011. 

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4915.html>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “EcoZones.” Accessed June 2011. 

<http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1131>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Environmental Conservation Law 3-

0301 and 24-1301, Chapter X-Division of Water, Part 701 Classifications-Surface Waters and 

Groundwaters.” Accessed April 18, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4592.html>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Floodplain Construction 

Requirements in New York State.” September 2007. Accessed April 19, 2011. 

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/floodplainconstruction.pdf>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “More than 9 million earmarked for 

Brownfield Cleanup in Poughkeepsie.” November 2006. Accessed June 20, 2011.

<http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/18823.html>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “New York State Natural Heritage 

Program.” Accessed June 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/29338.html>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “New York State Parks.” Accessed June 

2011. <http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/146/details.aspx>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Protection of Waters Program, 

Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15, Implementing Regulations, 6NYCRR PART 608.” 

Accessed September 15, 2011. . < http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6042.html>.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Watersheds, Lakes, Rivers.” Accessed 

April 18, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26561.html>.

New York State Department of Transportation. Design Report, New York State High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Program, Empire Corridor, Schenectady to Albany, Mile Post 0.0 to Mile Post 169.0. 

Revised March 3, 2000.

New York State Department of Transportation. “Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 4 –

Water and Ecology.” Accessed September 15, 2011.

<https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-andguidance/epm/chapter-4>.

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 1A-Final Design/Construction & Track 4-FY 2009 

Appropriations Projects, NY EW-1 1A-EmpireW-Schenectady Station Rehabilitation, Version 

Number: 001.” August 24, 2009.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 5

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS References

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 1A-Final Design/Construction & Track 4-FY 2009 

Appropriations Projects, NY EW-6 1A-EmpireW-Syracuse Congestion Relief, Version Number: 001.” 

August 24, 2009.

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 1A-Final Design/Construction & Track 4-FY 2009 

Appropriations Projects, NY EW-9 1A-EmpireW-Buffalo-Depew Station Improvements, Version 

Number: 001.” August 24, 2009.

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 1A-Final Design/Construction & Track 4-FY 2009 

Appropriations Projects, NY EW-13 1A-EmpireW-Niagara Falls International Station, Version 

Number: 001.” August 24, 2009.

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 1A-Final Design/Construction & Track 4-FY 2009 

Appropriations Projects, NY EW-20 1A-EmpireW-Phase 1 3rd Track 382-393, Version Number: 

001.” August 24, 2009.

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 1A-Final Design/Construction & Track 4-FY 2009 

Appropriations Projects, NY ES-10 1A-EmpireS-ALB-SDY Construct 2nd Track, Version Number: 

001.” August 24, 2009.

New York State Department of Transportation. “FRA Grant Application, High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, Track 2-Corridor Programs: Corridor Service Overview, NYEmpireS-EmpireW Corridor, Version Number: 001.” October 2, 2001.

New York State Department of Transportation. Multimodal Transportation Program Submission: 

2009-2014. March 2008.

New York State Department of Transportation. New York State Rail Plan – Strategies for a New Age. 

2009.

New York State Department of Transportation. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

for Federal Fiscal Years 2011 – 2014. <https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/stip-project-rpt>.

New York State GIS Clearinghouse, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. Albany 

Pine Bush. June 2011.

New York State GIS Clearinghouse, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. Wildlife 

Refuge. June 2011.

New York State Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. February 2011. Biodiversity Databases, Element Occurrence Record Digital Data Set. 

Albany, NY.

Page 6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
References Tier 1 Draft EIS

Parsons-Clough Harbour. I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study: Existing Corridor Conditions and 

Opportunities. Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, May 2004.

Parsons-Clough Harbour. I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study: Final Report Corridor Strategic Plan. 

Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, April 2006.

Parsons-Clough Harbour. High Speed Rail Pre-Feasibility Study: New York City to Montreal. Prepared 

for the New York State Department of Transportation, February 2004.

Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council. New Connections: The Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan for Dutchess County. November 2007. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/TransportationCouncil/17381.htm>.

Public Policy Institute of California. Making the Most of Transit Density, Employment Growth, and 

Ridership around New Stations. February 2011. 

Putnam County Division of Planning and Development. Vision 2010: Guiding Putnam into the Next 

Decade. August 2003. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.putnamcountyny.com/planning/files/vision2010.pdf>.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Air: T100 Domestic Segment (U.S. Carriers).”

<http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=259&DB_Short_Name=Air>.

Saratoga Associates. City of Amsterdam Comprehensive Plan. 2003. Accessed September 28, 2011. 

<http://www.amsterdamedz.com/pub/complan2003.pdf>.

Saratoga Associates. City of Hudson Comprehensive Plan: Diversity Through Balance. April 2002. 

Accessed September 27, 2011. <http://cityofhudson.org/content/Generic/View/2>.

Stern, Todd, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, letter to Mr. Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC. January 28, 

2010.

Stuart I. Brown Associates and D.J. Parrone & Associates, P.C. Genesee County Comprehensive Plan. 

Prepared for Genesee County Legislature, September 1997. Assessed October 12, 2011. 

<http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/docs/planning/ExecutiveSummarydone.pdf>.

Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council. Long Range Transportation Plan: Syracuse 

Metropolitan Planning Area – 2007 Update. June 2007. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

<http://www.smtcmpo.org/docs/reports/LRTP_update_2007/TOCRes.pdf>.

SYSTRA Engineering. Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan: Final Report, (Document 

No. M40801-11/95 18/STU-137). Prepared for Amtrak, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSXT, MTA 

Metro-North Railroad, NYSDOT. November 2005.

U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, North American Transborder Freight Data, “Top 104 

Ports/Districts by Trade Value (U.S. Dollars) (Ranked by Total Trade) for U.S.-Canada Partner Trade 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS References

by Rail: Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York.” Accessed October 12, 2011. 

<http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_QuickSearch.html>.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2010a. “American Fact Finder.” Accessed July 2011. <www.census.gov>.

U.S. Census Bureau, Census, 2010b. “2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.” 

Accessed July 2011. <www.census.gov>.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Employment,” 2009.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product by State,” 

2009.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product by 

State/Metropolitan Area.” Accessed June 17, 2011. 

<http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1>, 

<http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2>.

U.S. Department of Transportation, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Development, Washington, D.C., 

September 1998.

U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2. “Floodplain Management and Protection.” April 

23, 1979.

U.S. Department of Transportation. “Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 62, No. 72, April 15, 1997.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA Report FTAVA-90-1003-06, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., May 2006.

U.S. DOT Freight Analysis Framework. (FAF Version)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered Species Glossary.” Accessed July 2011. 

<http://fws.gov/midwest/endangered/glossary/index.html>.

Wayne County Planning Department. Wayne County Comprehensive Plan Public Opinion Survey. 

December 2004.

Wayne County Master Plan, 1997.

Westchester County Planning Board. Westchester 2025/plan together: a partnership for 

Westchester’s future. May 2008 (amended January 2010). Accessed September 28, 2011. 

<http://www.westchestergov.com/planning/docs/Adopted2025ContextPoliciesAmended1-5-

10.pdf>.

Westchester County Planning Board. 2012 Capital Project Requests, Report of the Westchester 

County Planning Board. Accessed August 2, 2011. 

<http://planning.westchestergov.com/images/stories/PlanningBoard/pbreport2012.pdf>.

Page 8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
References Tier 1 Draft EIS

Wilbur Smith Associates. Mohawk-Erie Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study. Prepared for the 

New York State Department of Transportation and the New York State Thruway Authority 

(ongoing).

Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study, Technical 

Memorandum No. 3: Freight Transportation Market Profiles, Project No. 06 Freight. Prepared for 

Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, March 6, 2009.

Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study, Technical 

Memorandum No. 4: Freight Transportation Needs, Project No. 06 Freight. Prepared for Greater 

Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, Updated June 2010.

Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study, Technical 

Memorandum No. 5: Economic Impact Analysis, Project No. 06 Freight. Prepared for the Greater 

Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, Updated June 2010.

Wilbur Smith Associates. Niagara Frontier Urban Area Freight Transportation Study Final Report, 

Project No. 06Freight. Prepared for the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, 

August 2010.

Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., 2035 County Population and Employment Forecasts.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 9

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS References

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Acronyms Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Acronyms

AC ― Alternating Current

ACHP ― Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACMs ― Asbestos Containing Materials

ADA ― Americans with Disabilities Act

Amtrak ― National Railroad Passenger Corporation

APE ― Area of Potential Effect

ARRA ― American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

AST ― Aboveground Storage Tanks

ASTM ― American Society for Testing and Materials

BA ― Base Alternative

BCA ― Bird Conservation Area

BEA ― Bureau of Economic Analysis

BMPs ― Best Management Practices

BSPS ― Bergen Swamp Preservation Society

CAA ― U.S. Clean Air Act

CAAA ― Clean Air Act Amendments

CAFE ― Combined Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CBRS ― Coastal Barrier Resources System

CBS ― NYS Chemical Bulk Storage System

CDTA ― Capital District Transportation Authority

CDTC ― Capital District Transportation Committee

CE ― Categorical Exclusion

CEA ― Critical Environmental Areas

CENTRO ― Central New York Regional Transportation Authority

CEQ ― Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA ― Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CERCLIS ― Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

 Information Systems (also known as Superfund)

CFR ― Code of Federal Regulations

CLG ― Certified Local Government

CLOMR ― Conditional Letter of Map Revision

CO ― Carbon monoxide

CO2 ― Carbon dioxide 

CO2e ― Carbon dioxide equivalent

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 11

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Acronyms

CP ― Control Point

CPP ― Construction Protection Plan

CSXT ― CSX Transportation, Inc.

CWA ― U.S. Clean Water Act

CZM ― Coastal Zone Management

CZMA ― Coastal Zone Management Act

dB ― Decibel

dBA ― A-weighted decibels

DC ― Direct Current

DOI ― U.S. Department of the Interior

DPM ― Diesel Particulate Matter

DPW ― Department of Public Works

EA ― Environmental Assessment

ECL ― Environmental Conservation Law

EFH ― Essential Fish Habitat

EIS ― Environmental Impact Statement

EO ― Executive Order

EPAC ― Empire Project Advisory Committee

EPCRA ― Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

ESA ― Environmental Site Assessment

ESC ― Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

ESPA ― Empire State Passenger Association

FAA ― Federal Aviation Administration

FE ― Federal Endangered Species

FEMA ― Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA ― Federal Highway Administration

FIRM ― Flood Insurance Rate Map

FNOI ― Final Notice of Intent

FPA ― Floodplain Administrator

FPPA ― Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981

FR ― Federal Register

FRA ― Federal Railroad Administration

FT ― Federal Threatened Species

FTA ― Federal Transit Administration

FY ― Fiscal Year

GBNRTC ― Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council

Page 12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Acronyms Tier 1 Draft EIS

GCT ― Grand Central Terminal

GE ― General Electric Company

GHG ― Greenhouse Gas 

GIS ― Geographic Information System

GTC ― Genesee Transportation Council

GWP ― Global Warming Potential

HABS ― Historic American Buildings Survey

HAER ― Historic American Engineering Record

HAPs ― Hazardous Pollutants

HFC ― Hydrofluorocarbons

HOCTS ― Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study

HSIPR ― High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR ― High Speed Rail

HST ― High Speed Train

Hz ― Hertz

ISTEA ― Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

kV ― Kilovolts

LEED ― Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Leq (h) ― Hourly equivalent noise level (typically the worst-case, peak hour noise 

level)

LOCMA ― Lower Orange County Metropolitan Area

LOMR ― Letter of Map Revision

LRTP ― Long Range Transportation Improvement Plan

LWCF ― United States Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

LWRP ― Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan

MAS ― Maximum Authorized Speed

mgt ― Million Gross Tons

MMPs ― Materials Management Plans

MNR ― Metro-North Railroad

MOSF ― Major Oil Storage Facility

MOA ― Memorandum of Agreement

MOU ― Memorandum of Understanding

MP ― Milepost

MPO ― Metropolitan Planning Organization

mph ― Miles per Hour

MSA ― Metropolitan Statistical Area

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Acronyms

MSAT ― Mobile Source Air Toxics

MS4 ― Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

MTA ― Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MTC ― New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

NAA ― Non-Attainment Area

NAAQS ― National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA ― National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NERRS ― National Estuarine Research Reserve System

NFIP ― National Flood Insurance Program

NFTA ― Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

NHL ― National Historic Landmark

NHPA ― National Historic Preservation Act

NJ ― New Jersey 

NMFS ― National Marine Fisheries Service

NNL ― National Natural Landmark

NO ― Nitric Oxide

NO2 ― Nitrogen Dioxide

NOAA ― National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI ― Notice of Intent

NORAC ― Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee

NOx ― Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES ― National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS ― National Park Service

NR ― National Register of Historic Places

NRCS ― Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRI ― Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NWI ― National Wetlands Inventory

NWP ― Nationwide Permit

NWR ― National Wildlife Refuge

NYAC ― New York Archaeological Council

NYC ― New York City

NYCRR ― New York Code of Rules and Regulations

NYMA ― New York Metropolitan Area

NYMTC ― New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

NYNHP ― New York Natural Heritage Program

NYS ― New York State

Page 14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Acronyms Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 15 

New York State Department of Transportation 

NYSDEC	 ―	 New	York	State	Department	of	Environmental	Conservation	

NYSDOL	 ―	 New	York	State	Department	of	Labor	

NYSDOS	 ―	 New	York	State	Department	of	State	

NYSDOT ―	 New	York	State	Department	of	Transportation	

NYSESD	 ―	 New	York	State	Empire	State	Development	Corporation	

NYSGIS ―	 New	York	State	Geographic	Information	System	

NYSM		 ―	 New	York	State	Museum	

NYSMPO	 ―	 New	York	State	Metropolitan	Planning	Organizations	

NYSOPRHP	 ―	 New	York	State	Office	of	Parks,	Recreation,	and	Historic	Preservation	

O&M	 	 ―	 Operating	and	Maintenance	

OCTC	 	 ―	 Orange	County	Transportation	Council	

OMB	 	 ―	 United	States	Office	of	Management	and	Budget	

OTP	 	 ―	 On‐time	performance	

PA	 	 ―	 Programmatic	Agreement	

PBS	 	 ―	 New	York	State	Petroleum	Bulk	Storage	

PCB	 	 ―	 Polychlorinated	Biphenyl	

PDCTC		 ―	 Poughkeepsie‐Dutchess	County	Transportation	Council	

PFC	 	 ―	 Perfluorocarbons	

PIP	 	 ―	 Public	Involvement	Plan	

PM	 	 ―	 Particulate	Matter	

PM2.5	 	 ―	 Particulate	Matter	under	2.5	microns	in	size	

PM10	 	 ―	 Particulate	Matter	under	10	microns	in	size	

PPA	 	 ―	 Pollution	Prevention	Act	of	1990	

ppm	 	 ―		 Parts	per	Million	

PRIIA	 	 ―	 Passenger	Rail	Investment	and	Improvement	Act	of	2008	

PTC	 	 ―	 Positive	Train	Control	

QDN	 	 ―	 Milepost	designation,	Niagara	Branch	

QH	 	 ―	 Milepost	designation,	125	high	speed	corridor,	Empire	Corridor	West	

RCRA	 	 ―	 U.S. Resource	Conservation	and	Recovery	Act		

RCRIS ―	 Resource	Conservation	and	Recovery	Information	System	

RGRTA	 ―	 Rochester	Genesee	Regional	Transportation	Authority	

ROD	 	 ―	 Record	of	Decision	

RONY	 	 ―	 Railroads	of	New	York	

ROW	 	 ―	 Right‐of‐Way	

RSIA	 	 ―	 U.S. Rail	Safety	Improvement	Act	of	2008	

RTA	 	 ―	 Regional	Transportation	Authority	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Acronyms 

Page 16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

SAFETEA‐LU ―	 U.S.	Safe,	Accountable,	Flexible,	Efficient	Transportation	Equity	Act:	A	Legacy	

	 	 	 for	Users	

SASS	 	 ―	 Scenic	Areas	of	Statewide	Significance	

SCFWH	 ―	 Significant	Coastal	Fish	and	Wildlife	Habitats	

SE	 	 ―	 State	Endangered	Species	

SED	 	 ―	 New	York State	Education	Department	

SEQR	 	 ―	 New	York	State	Environmental	Quality	Review	Act	

SF6	 	 ―	 Sulfur	Hexafluoride	

SHPA	 	 ―	 New	York	State	Historic	Preservation	Act	of	1980	

SHPO		 	 ―		 State	Historic	Preservation	Officer	

SIP ―	 State	Implementation	Plan	

SMTC	 	 ―	 Syracuse	Metropolitan	Transportation	Council	

S/NR	 	 ―	 State/National	Register	of	Historic	Places	

SO2	 	 ―	 Sulfur	Dioxide	

SPCC	 	 ―	 Spill	Prevention	Control	Plan	

SPDES	 	 ―	 State	Pollutant	Discharge	Elimination	System	

SR	 	 ―	 State	Register	of	Historic	Places	

SSA	 	 ―	 Sole	Source	Aquifer	

ST	 	 ―	 State	Threatened	Species	

STB	 	 ―	 Surface	Transportation	Board	

STIP	 	 ―	 Statewide	Transportation	Improvement	Program	

SWMP	 	 ―	 Stormwater	Management	Plan	

SWPPP	 ―	 Stormwater	Pollution	Prevention	Plan	

TAP	 	 ―	 Toxic	Air	Pollutant	

TEA‐21	 ―	 Transportation	Equity	Act	for	the	21st	Century	

TEM	 	 ―	 NYSDOT	Environmental	Manual	

Tg CO2e	 ―	 Teragrams	of	Carbon	Dioxide	Equivalent	

THPO	 	 ―	 Tribal	Historic	Preservation	Officer	

TIGER	 	 ―	 Transportation	Investment	Generating	Economic	Recovery	

TIP	 	 ―	 Transportation	Improvement	Program	

TMDL	 	 ―	 Total	Maximum	Daily	Load	

TOD	 	 ―	 Transit	Oriented	Development	

TRIS	 	 ―	 Toxic	Release	Inventory	System	

UCTC	 	 ―	 Ulster	County	Transportation	Council		

U.S.	 	 ―	 United	States	

U.S. ACE ―	 United	States	Army	Corp	of	Engineers	
Acronyms Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 17 

New York State Department of Transportation 

U.S.C. ―	 United	States	Code	

USCG ―	 United	States	Coast	Guard	

USDA ―	 United	States	Department	of	Agriculture	

U.S. DOT	 ―	 United	States	Department	of	Transportation	

U.S. EPA		 ―		 United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	

U.S. FWS		 ―		 United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	

USGBC		 ―		 United	States	Green	Building	Council		

USGS		 	 ―		 United	States	Geological	Survey		

UST 	 ―	 Underground	Storage	Tank	

VHS	 	 ―	 Very	High	Speed		

VMT	 	 ―	 Vehicle	Miles	Traveled	

VOC	 	 ―	 Volatile	Organic	Compound	

WMA	 	 ―	 Wildlife	Management	Area	

	 	
Tier 1 Draft EIS Acronyms

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Glossary of Terms Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Glossary of Terms

100-Year Floodplain – The portion of the floodplain submerged by the statistical flood event with 

a 1 percent probability of occurring in any year.

Alightings – The number of passengers leaving a passenger vehicle at a station.

Aquifer – Rock or sediment that is saturated with water and sufficiently permeable to transmit 

economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) – The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), enacted on February 17, 2009, appropriated a total of 

$787 billion, including $8 billion specifically for HSIPR and $1.3 billion for Amtrak capital grants.

ARRA sought from states “shovel ready” transportation projects, among them programs and 

projects to advance high-speed rail.

Archaeological resources – Materials and objects that remain below the ground surface as 

evidence of the life and culture of historic, prehistoric, or ancient people, such as artifacts, 

structures, or settlements. Resources of concern are located in areas known or suspected to 

contain subsurface artifacts of pre-European or post-European settlement populations. Areas of 

expected moderate to high archaeological sensitivity according to various factors including present 

and past topography, exposure, slope, distance to water, and availability of food.

At-grade – The intersection of two roads, or a road and a railway, that cross at the same elevation. 

Attainment area – A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the healthbased primary standard (National Ambient Air Quality Standard) for the pollutant. Attainment 

areas are defined using federal pollutant limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Automatic Block Signaling (ABS) – A block system that consists of a series of signals that divides a 

railway line into a series of blocks and then functions to control the movement of trains between 

them through automatic signals. ABS operation is designed to allow trains operating in the same 

direction to follow each other in a safe manner with greatly reduced risk of rear end collision while 

reducing costs and increasing capacity from previous manual block systems that require human 

operators. 

Best Management Practice (BMP) – A structural and/or management practice employed before, 

during and after construction to protect receiving water quality. These practices either provide 

techniques to reduce soil erosion or remove sediment and pollutants from surface runoff.

Biodiversity – The diversity of genes, species, and ecosystems. This term includes the entire 

hierarchy of ecological organization, and encompasses regional ecosystem diversity (landscape 

diversity), local ecosystem diversity (community diversity), species diversity, and genetic diversity 

within populations of a species. 

Boardings – The number of passengers entering a passenger vehicle at a station.

Cab Signaling – A system of signaling devices located in a train operator’s compartment or cab, 

indicating a condition affecting the movement of a train or engine and used in conjunction with 

interlocking signals and either in conjunction with or in lieu of wayside block signals.

Canadian Pacific Railway – A major freight rail carrier that operates in New York State, and is the 

host railroad for Amtrak trains between Schenectady and Rouses Point.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 19

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Glossary of Terms

Car Mile – A single vehicle, such as a railroad car, moved one mile (also see “Train Mile”).

Carbon Dioxide – Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant of concern 

from anthropogenic (man-made) sources. Although not the GHG with the strongest effect per 

molecule, CO2 is by far the most abundant and, therefore, the most influential GHG. CO2 is emitted 

from any combustion process (both natural and anthropogenic), from some industrial processes 

such as the manufacture of cement, mineral production, metal production, and the use of 

petroleum-based products, from volcanic eruptions, and from the decay of organic matter. CO2 is 

removed (“sequestered”) from the lower atmosphere by natural processes such as photosynthesis 

and uptake by the oceans. CO2 is included in any analysis of GHG emissions.

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – To present a complete inventory of all GHGs, component 

emissions are added together and presented as CO2 equivalent (CO2e)—a unit representing the 

quantity of each GHG weighted by its effectiveness using CO2 as a reference. This is achieved by 

multiplying the quantity of each GHG emitted by a factor called global warming potential (GWP). 

GWPs account for the lifetime and the radiative forcing of each chemical over a period of 100 years 

(e.g., CO2 has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than SF6, and therefore has a much lower GWP).

Carbon Monoxide (CO) – A colorless, odorless, tasteless gas formed in large part by incomplete 

combustion of fuel. Full combustion activities (i.e. transportation, industrial processes, space 

heating, etc.) are the major sources of CO.

Center Island Platform – A passenger platform located between two tracks so that it can serve 

them both.

Centerline – The midpoint in a cross-sectional view of a right-of-way, roadway, or railroad track, 

see also “Track Centers, Distance Between.”

Class I Railroad – The Surface Transportation Board (STB) defines a Class I railroad in the United 

States as “having annual carrier operating revenues of $250 million or more” after adjusting for 

inflation using a Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 

According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), Class I railroads had minimum carrier 

operating revenues of $378.8 million (USD) in 2009. Smaller railroads are assigned to Class II or III.

Classification Yard – A rail terminal facility, usually consisting of a system of turnouts (which see) 

and parallel tracks, used for sorting freight cars by destination and for assembling trains.

Combined Statistical Area (CSA) – A grouping of adjacent metropolitan and/or micropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States and Puerto Rico. The United States Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) defines combined statistical areas based on social and economic 

ties measured by commuting patterns between adjacent MSAs. The areas that combine retain their 

own designations as metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas within the larger combined 

statistical area. The primary distinguishing factor between a CSA and an MSA is that the social and 

economic ties between the individual MSAs within a CSA are at lower levels than between the 

counties within an MSA.

Coniferous – Any of various mostly needle-leaved or scale-leaved, chiefly evergreen, cone-bearing 

gymnospermous trees or shrubs such as pines, spruces, and firs.

Container on Flat Car – A form of intermodal freight transportation (which see) in which freight 

containers are carried on railroad cars equipped for that purpose; may be arranged to handle a 

single level of containers or double-stacked containers (see “Double-Stack Car”).

Control Point – An interlocking, or the location of a track signal or other marker, the indications of 

which dispatchers can specify when controlling trains.

Page 20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Glossary of Terms Tier 1 Draft EIS

Cooperating Agency – Any federal, state or local agency, other than a lead agency, that has 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a 

proposed project or project alternative.

Critical Environmental Area (CEA) – An area designated as a CEA under the New York State 

Environmental Quality Act by state and local agencies must have one or more of the following 

exceptional or unique characteristics: 1) A benefit or threat to human health; 2) A natural setting; 

3) Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or 4) An 

inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected 

by any change.

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) – A major rail freight carrier with largest market share in New 

York State, and host railroad for Amtrak trains between Poughkeepsie and Niagara Falls.

Daily Trains per Route – The number of trains traversing a defined railroad line or section of line 

during a specified 24-hour period.

dBA – An abbreviation for A-weighted decibel. The decibel is a unit used to describe sound 

pressure levels on a logarithmic scale. For community noise impact assessment, an A-weighted 

frequency filter is used to approximate the way humans hear sound.

Deciduous – Refers to woody vegetation, such as oak or maple trees, that shed their leaves after 

the growing season.

Double-Stack Car – A railroad freight car that provides a frame in which a freight container can be 

placed and secured, with provisions and clearances to allow a second container to be placed and 

secured on top of the first container.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) – The document prepared by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

regulations. These regulations require that the EIS evaluate all reasonable alternatives considered, 

discuss the reasons that alternatives have been eliminated from detailed study, summarize the 

studies, reviews, consultations, and coordination required by environmental laws and Executive 

Orders.

Dual Mode Locomotive – Railroad locomotive that can switch from electric to diesel operation for 

power generation.

Empire Project Advisory Committee (EPAC) – Advisory Committee consisting of representatives 

from key federal/state agencies, key railroads, and statewide organizations representing regional 

governments.

Endangered Species – Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to “make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing... disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority populations and low-income 

populations.”

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) – Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, as defined by the regional Fishery Management Council.

Farmland of Statewide Importance – Land other than prime farmland but that is also highly 

productive. This is land, in addition to prime farmland, that is of statewide importance for the 

production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Glossary of Terms

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) – A statute enacted in 1981 by the United States Congress 

to ensure that significant agricultural lands are protected from conversion to non-agricultural uses. 

For highway projects receiving federal aid, the regulations promulgated under the FPPA (7 CFR 

Part 658, 1984) require a state highway authority (NYSDOT) to coordinate with the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. The FPPA regulates four types of farmland soils; prime farmland, 

unique farmland, farmland of state-wide importance, and farmland of local importance. 

Farmland Soils – Soils suited to producing crops; those with soil quality, growing season and

moisture supply needed to produce a sustainable yield when treated and managed using acceptable 

methods. Specifically, farmland soils are those soil types designated by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 

and the implementing regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – A federal agency that regulates federal 

actions in floodplains.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – The branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

responsible for administering the funding of federal-aid highway projects.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) – The FRA was created by the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 103, Section 3(e)(1)). The purpose of the FRA is to: 

promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations; administer railroad assistance programs; conduct 

research and development in support of improved railroad safety and national rail transportation 

policy; provide for the rehabilitation of Northeast Corridor rail passenger service; and consolidate 

government support of rail transportation activities. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) – The document prepared after circulation of 

a draft EIS and consideration of comments received. FRA NEPA regulations require that the FEIS 

identify a preferred alternative, evaluate all reasonable alternatives considered, discuss and 

respond to substantive comments on the draft EIS, summarize public involvement, and describe the 

mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the proposed action.

Floodplain – The level area adjoining a river channel that is inundated during periods of high flow. 

Freight Train Mile – A freight train operating one mile (also see “Train Mile”).

Geographic Information System (GIS) – A computer-based application used to perform spatial 

analysis. 

Grade – The slope of a railway or road along the direction of travel, normally characterized by the 

vertical rise per unit of longitudinal distance.

Grade Crossing – A crossing or intersection of highways, railroad tracks, other guideways, or 

pedestrian walks, or combinations of these at the same level or grade.

Grade separation – The intersection of two roads, or a road and a railway, that cross at different

elevations. One roadway passes above or under the other roadway with an overpass or underpass

structure.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions – Any or all of several gases that negatively affect ambient air 

quality when released into the atmosphere as part of the exhaust gases and smoke thrown off by 

internal combustion engines used to propel transportation vehicles. Water vapor, carbon dioxide 

(CO2), nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s 

atmosphere.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – Gross Domestic Product is one of the major economic indices of 

the socio-economic development of a region. GDP is equal to the total of added values in the 

Page 22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Glossary of Terms Tier 1 Draft EIS

regional economic industries, estimated as a difference between production and intermediate 

consumption.

Gross Tons – The total weight of a vehicle and the lading, if any, that it is carrying, i.e., the sum of 

Tare Weight and Revenue Tons (which see).

Gross Tons per Year – The total weight of lading and vehicles carried over a roadway or railroad 

line of track during a one-year period.

Groundwater Protection Areas – Areas of land designated by water resource agencies through 

which rainwater or snowmelt percolates to replenish the underlying aquifer in the area of a public 

well. These areas require special protection because they directly affect the quality and safety of the 

public drinking water supply.

High-Level Platform – A passenger station platform whose surface is at the same elevation above 

the rail as the floor of conventional railroad passenger cars, typically 51 inches, to enable stepless 

boarding and alighting in conformance with ADA requirements.

High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program – The Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) launched the HSIPR Program in June 2009. The HSIPR Program supports a series of strategic 

transportation goals: building a foundation for economic competitiveness; ensuring safe and 

efficient transportation choices; promoting energy efficiency and environmental quality; and 

supporting interconnected livable communities. In the long-term, HSIPR Program funding is 

intended to build an efficient, high-speed passenger rail network connecting major population 

centers 100 to 600 miles apart. In the near-term, the program will aid in economic recovery efforts 

and lay the foundation for this high-speed passenger rail network through planning studies and 

targeted investments in existing intercity passenger rail infrastructure, equipment, and intermodal 

connections.

Historic resources – Properties, structures and districts that are listed in or have been determined 

to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Interlocking – In rail systems, an arrangement of switch, lock, and signal devices that is located 

where rail tracks cross, join and/or separate. The devices are interconnected in such a way that 

their movements must succeed each other in a predetermined order, thereby preventing opposing 

or conflicting train movements.

Intermodal Freight Transportation – Goods that are loaded into a highway trailer or container, 

then shipped from origin to destination by moving the trailer or container via some combination of 

road, rail marine and/or (rarely) air transport.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) – The Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA, pronounced Ice-Tea) is a United 

States federal law that posed a major change to transportation planning and policy, as the first U.S. 

federal legislation on the subject in the post-Interstate Highway System era. It presented an overall 

intermodal approach to highway and transit funding with collaborative planning requirements, 

giving significant additional powers to metropolitan planning organizations. Signed into law on 

December 18, 1991 by President George H. W. Bush, it expired in 1997. It was preceded by the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and followed by the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and most recently in 2005, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

Interstate – A limited access highway that is part of the National System of Interstate and Defense 

Highways (“Interstate Highway System”).

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 23

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Glossary of Terms

Interstate Highway System – The network of Interstate Highways established by the Federal-Aid 

Highway Act of 1956. The statute established a 41,000-mile network of controlled-access highways 

(expanded to 42,000 miles by legislation in 1968) intended to connect all metropolitan areas with 

populations greater than 50,000 and all state capitals.

Land and Water Conservation Fund – A system for funding Federal, State and local parks and 

conservation areas, created by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964.

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act – Legislation (16 U.S.C. 

1855(b)) governing all fisheries resources within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S. coast that 

established regional Fishery Management Councils and required the preparation of Fisheries 

Management Plans.

Main Track – A principal track over which all or most of a railroad line’s train traffic moves. 

Depending on traffic volume, railroad lines may have a single main track, or two or multiple main 

tracks.

Maintenance of way – The upkeep and repair of a railroad’s fixed property (such as tracks and 

bridges); the process of maintaining railroad roadbed (such as rail, ties, ballast, bridges, etc.).

Maximum Authorized Speed (MAS) – The top speed (mph) at which trains are allowed to operate 

in a particular section of track; generally specified in the employees’ timetable.

Meet – An operating event wherein two trains, one running in each direction, pass each other; can 

occur without restriction on a line with two or more main tracks, but must occur at a passing siding 

on a line with a single main track.

Metro North Railroad (Metro-North) – The unit of the New York Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority that operates commuter rail lines serving Grand Central Terminal. Metro-North is the 

host railroad for Amtrak trains between Spuyten Duyvil and Poughkeepsie.

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) – As defined by the United States Office of Management and 

Budget, a MSA includes at least one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or an urbanized area (of 

at least 50,000 inhabitants), and a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000. Each MSA has 

its own metropolitan planning organization as decreed by federal law.

Mitigation – Actions that avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential adverse impacts.

Multi-modal – The act of providing alternative modes or choices of transportation service, such as

automobile, bus, rail, taxi, etc.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) – The prescribed level of pollutants in the 

outside air that cannot be exceeded during a specified time in a specified geographic area.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) – The federal legislation that 

requires an interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision-making for federal-aid actions. The 

Act includes requirements for the contents of environmental impact statements that are to 

accompany every recommendation for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. The interdisciplinary study approach includes the analysis of potential 

impacts to the natural, social and economic environment.

National Heritage Area – Established by Congress to promote historic preservation and an 

appreciation of the history and heritage of designated sites. National Heritage Areas are 

administered by state or local governments or non-profit or private corporations and are not 

federally owned and managed.

National Historic Landmark (NHL) – A historic building, site, structure, object, or district that 

represents an outstanding aspect of American history and culture.

Page 24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Glossary of Terms Tier 1 Draft EIS

National Historic Site – Usually, a national historic site contains a single historical feature that was 

directly associated with a person or family of historical significance. These areas may also be 

associated with specific historic periods that are important in American history.

National Memorial – A place designated by the U.S. Congress for protection as a memorial to a 

historic person or event.

National Natural Landmark (NNL) – The National Registry of Natural Landmarks includes 

nationally significant geological and biological features.

National Priority List (NPL) – The “Superfund” statute (42 U.S.C. Sect. 9601) requires the EPA to 

establish a National Priorities List of sites which are to be given top priority consideration for 

removal of hazardous substances and remedial action.

National Register of Historic Places – A list of structures, sites and districts of national historical 

significance as determined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under the National 

Historic Preservation Act.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) – A program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for mapping and classifying wetland resources in the United States.

National Wildlife Refuge – The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, is the nation’s system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve fish, wildlife 

and plants.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) – Formerly the Soil Conservation Service, NRCS 

is a unit within the United State Department of Agriculture that is responsible for administering the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) – Nitric oxide (NO) and Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are collectively referred to 

as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NO forms during high temperature combustion processes. NO2 forms 

when NO further reacts in the atmosphere. NOx reacts with the sunlight to form ozone, a colorless 

gas associated with smog or haze conditions. Ozone is a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990.

Noise receptor – Locations that may be affected by noise: sensitive receptors include residences, 

parks, schools, churches, libraries, hotels, and other public buildings.

Non-Attainment Area – A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant fail to meet the 

health-based primary standard (National Ambient Air Quality Standard) for the pollutant. NonAttainment areas are defined using federal pollutant limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency.

On-Time Performance – Arrival time of a public transportation vehicle at an intermediate or final 

destination station at the time designated in the operating timetable for that event. For contract 

enforcement purposes, usually taken to mean arrival at the trip’s final destination station at or no 

more than a specified number of minutes after the published arrival time.

Overhead Bridges – With reference to the railroad tracks, overhead bridges are bridges that carry 

another feature, such as a road, over the referenced tracks.

Overtake – An operating event wherein a faster train passes a slower train running in the same 

direction; can occur between appropriately placed crossovers on a line with two or more main 

tracks, but must occur at a passing siding on a line with a single main track.

Ozone – A gas which is a variety of oxygen. Ozone is a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog. Ozone is not directly 

emitted by motor vehicles, but is formed when oxides of nitrogen react with sunlight.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 25

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Glossary of Terms

Participating Agency – A federal, state, tribal, or local government agency that may have an 

interest in the project.

Passenger Mile (PM) – A basic unit of productivity defined as one passenger riding one mile.

Passenger Miles Traveled (PMT) – PMT is a measure of passenger demand and trip length. One 

passenger traveling one mile constitutes one passenger-mile. One passenger riding ten miles = 10 

PMT; 50 passengers each riding 100 miles = 5,000 PMT.

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) – PRIIA was enacted in 2008 

as Public Law 110-432. PRIIA authorized a high-speed grant program for FY 2009 through FY 2013 

to improve intercity passenger rail service, operations and facilities. PRIIA also directed the U.S. 

Secretary of Transportation to develop a long-range national rail plan that is consistent with 

approved State rail plans and the rail plans of the nation.

Passing Track – A track adjacent to a main or secondary track used primarily for trains to execute 

meet or overtake movements.

Peak hour – The hour of the day when traffic volume on a given roadway is highest. A separate 

peak hour can be defined for morning and evening periods. On a public transportation facility, peak 

hour usually refers to the most heavily patronized hour of the operating day.

Pervious Surface – Relating to hydrology, a surface through which precipitation can penetrate into 

the ground, reducing direct runoff or perching (as compared to an impervious surface where no 

precipitation is able to penetrate into the ground, thereby making it necessary to collect more 

runoff into drainage systems). Some newer road surfacing mixes are designed to be pervious.

Positive Train Control (PTC) – A system that prevents train accidents due to operator errors. PTC

consists of locomotive-borne electronic equipment linked to central office dispatching systems via 

wireless data networks. If a train operator exceeds his/her movement authority, the train is sent a 

wireless signal and is automatically stopped.

Prime Farmland – As defined by the USDA, land that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for 

these uses.

Prime Farmland Soil – Soil map units that are designated by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service as having the properties needed to produce sustained high yield crops when managed with 

modern farming techniques.

Protected Stream – A stream or small water body along a stream that has a water quality 

classification of C(T) (trout supporting waters) or higher and is subjected to the stream protection 

provisions of the NYSDEC Protection of Waters regulations.

Record of Decision (ROD) – The document, prepared by the Federal Highway Administration or 

Federal Railroad Administration, that presents the basis for the Federal agency action, summarizes 

any mitigation measures to be incorporated, and documents any required Section 4(f) approvals. 

No Federal agency action may be undertaken until a Record of Decision has been signed. A Record 

of Decision is prepared no sooner than 30 days after the public release of the FEIS.

Revenue Tons – The portion a total vehicle weight represented by the weight of the lading the 

vehicle is carrying.

Ridership – The number of passengers using a vehicle (e.g., a train) or group of scheduled vehicles 

(e.g., several trains providing a complete schedule such as the Empire Service); may be measured for 

various units of time: per hour, day, week, month or year, depending on the intended use of the 

data.

Page 26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Glossary of Terms Tier 1 Draft EIS

Rolling Stock – The wheeled vehicles, both powered and unpowered, collectively used on a 

railway, including locomotives, passenger coaches, freight wagons and guard’s vans.

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) – The National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f), Section 106, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects

of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to 

comment on such undertakings. 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C., Section 303) 

(Section 4(f)) – Legislation protecting publicly owned parks, public recreation areas, historic 

properties or wildlife and waterfowl refuges. The statute states that no Department of 

Transportation project may use land from these areas unless there is demonstrated to be no 

prudent and feasible alternative to using the land, and the project includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm resulting from the use. 

Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act (Section 404) – The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is the enabling legislation for protection of waters of 

the United States by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)) – Legislation that 

provides for the public purchase and preservation of tracts of land.

Service Road – A roadway, often a minimally graded and improved single lane, providing access to 

rubber-tired maintenance of way vehicles along a length of otherwise inaccessible railroad line.

Service Yard – A rail terminal facility, usually consisting of system of turnouts (which see) and 

parallel tracks, as well as driveways placed between the tracks for rubber-tired maintenance

vehicles; used to store passenger trains between revenue runs, restock their supplies, and perform 

cleaning and other light servicing tasks.

Side Platform – A passenger platform located to the outside of the tracks, and normally serving 

only the track immediately adjacent to the platform.

Siding – A track adjacent to a main or secondary track, for meeting, passing, or storing cars or 

trains.

Significant Wildlife Habitat – Wildlife habitats, including deer wintering yards, waterfowl and 

wading bird habitat, seabird nesting habitat, and significant vernal pools, that are protected under 

38 M.R.S.A. § 480-B.

Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) – An aquifer designated by EPA as the “sole or principal source” of 

drinking water for a given aquifer service area; that is, an aquifer that is needed to supply 50% or 

more of the drinking water for that area and for which there are no reasonably available alternative 

sources should the aquifer become contaminated.

Stakeholder – All parties with a vested interest in the project. Such parties include the general 

public, federal and state agencies, Amtrak, CSX, Metro-North Railroad and other railroads, 

transportation agencies/metropolitan planning organizations, elected officials, corridor 

municipalities, business and interested non-governmental organizations.

State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) – A project review process that requires the 

sponsoring or approving governmental body to identify and mitigate the significant environmental 

impacts of the activity it is proposing or permitting.

State Implementation Plan (SIP) – A plan created under The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

(CAAA) that establishes emission reduction requirements for ozone and carbon monoxide nonHigh Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 27

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Glossary of Terms

attainment areas. Proposed projects must demonstrate that the impacts of their emissions are 

consistent with the appropriate SIP.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) – A plan required for major construction 

projects under the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit 

for construction activities. The SWPPP is required to address measures to prevent erosion, 

sedimentation, and other potential discharges of pollutants to water bodies and wetlands.

Study Area – The area within and surrounding the project corridor that was studied for the 

purposes of determining project-related impacts to resources resulting from implementing any of 

the studied alternatives. The study area is centered about the existing or prospective rail line 

centerlines and varies from 300 feet to 1⁄2 mile in width, depending on the resource. The study area 

follows the existing railroad corridor for the 90 mph and 110 mph alternatives; while for the 125 

mph alternative, the prospective railroad corridor follows a markedly different alignment through 

the Empire Corridor West.

Teragrams of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent – Equivalent to one million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent, unit used in greenhouse gas analysis.

Terminal Facility – The station, platforms and associated tracks, and Service Facility (which see) 

provided at or in the vicinity of the end station on a railroad or other public transportation route.

Threatened Species – Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Tiering – Staged environmental review process applied to the environmental review of complex 

projects.

Tier 1 EIS – Intent in the Tier 1 EIS is to make corridor-level decisions regarding the level of 

intercity passenger rail service provided in the corridor and evaluate and identify conceptual 

alternatives to be further considered in the Tier 2 NEPA document(s).

Tier 2 – The Tier 2 NEPA document(s) would explore in greater detail the component projects of 

the preferred corridor-level alternatives chosen in Tier 1. Tier 2 would include analysis based on 

engineering designs, identification of site-specific environmental consequences, and development 

of site-specific mitigation measures for the preferred alternative.

Tonnage – Weight, as measured in short tons (1 short ton = 2,000 pounds).

Track Centers, Distance Between – Measured distance in feet or meters between the centerlines 

of two adjacent and parallel railroad tracks. 

Train Mile – A consist of a locomotive with or without coupled railroad cars moved together one 

train mile. A train of one locomotive and five cars moved one mile will generate one train mile, one 

locomotive mile, five car miles, and six vehicle miles (also see “Car Mile”).

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) – The Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century was enacted June 9, 1998 as Public Law 105-178. TEA-21 authorizes the Federal 

surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit (including intercity rail

passenger projects) for the 6-year period 1998-2003. The TEA 21 Restoration Act, enacted July 22, 

1998, provided technical corrections to the original law.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – A staged multiyear program of transportation 

projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.

Travel Time – The elapsed time for a passenger or a vehicle to move between two defined points; 

an “origin” and a “destination.” May be broken down into sub-units describing portions of a trip, 

e.g.:

Page 28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Glossary of Terms Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Trains: Running times between each pair of passenger stations.

• Passengers: Sub-parts of an origin-to-destination trip, e.g.: Origin Access Time (origin to bus 

stop); Feeder (bus to railroad station); Line Haul (train to destination city); Destination Access 

(walk or taxi or bus from railroad station to destination).

Turnout – A track switch allowing movement of a railroad train from one track to another.

Undergrade Bridges – With reference to the railroad tracks, undergrade bridges are bridges that 

carry the referenced tracks over another feature such as a road, water bodies, other railroad tracks, 

etc.

Unit Train – A railroad freight train of uniform consistency that remains coupled, and that 

transports a single commodity directly from producer to a specific destination and that, after 

unloading, returns to the point of origin ready for another load.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE) – A federal agency that administers Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; its regulatory programs 

address wetlands and waterways protection.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – A federal agency responsible for 

administering programs that address farming issues

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) – A federal agency responsible for 

administering programs that address environmental issues.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) – A federal agency responsible for addressing 

the protection of fish and wildlife including rare, threatened, or endangered species. The USFWS 

plays an advisory role in the Section 404 regulatory program administered by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) – A scientific agency of the United States Government

tasked with studying the landscape of the United States, its natural resources, and the natural 

hazards that threaten it. The USGS is a fact-finding research organization with no regulatory 

responsibility.

Vehicle miles traveled) – The number of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is an indicator of the travel 

levels on the roadway system by motor vehicles. VMT is estimated for the given time period. This 

estimate is based upon traffic volume counts and roadway length.

Vernal pool – A naturally occurring temporary pool of surface water that provides breeding 

habitat for certain amphibian and invertebrate species.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – Colorless gaseous compounds originating, in part, from the 

evaporation and incomplete combustion of fuels. In the presence of sunlight VOCs react to form 

ozone, a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act Amendments.

Watershed – A region or area that contains all land ultimately draining to a water course, body of 

water, or aquifer.

Wetland – Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wildlife Management Area (WMA) – Lands owned by New York State under the control and 

management of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Division of Fish, 

Wildlife and Marine Resources. These lands have been acquired primarily for the production and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Glossary of Terms

use of wildlife although most WMA’s also provide good opportunities for hiking, cross-country 

skiing, bird watching, or quiet enjoyment of nature.

Wild and Scenic River – A river or river segment, designated by the National Park Service, because 

of the outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or 

other similar values (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287).

Page 30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
List of Preparers Tier 1 Draft EIS 

List of Preparers

HNTB, Lead Consultant 

Jim Cartin –Senior Project Manager, Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

Bachelors, Industrial Management. Over 40 years of experience in rail passenger, freight and 

intermodal program development, finance strategies, capital program, railroad negotiations and 

agency coordination.

Indradeep Chakrabarty – Task leader for the Ridership Analysis and Revenue Projections

Masters, Environmental Planning; Bachelors, Architecture. Over 12 years of experience working on 

various transportation and land use planning projects.

Peter J, Denitz – Project Manager for Tier 1 Programmatic EIS

Masters, Urban Planning. Over 34 years of experience managing complex transit, rail and land use 

projects; corridor studies; FTA New Starts development, and NEPA documentation.

Eric DiVirgilio – Engineering Lead 90B and 110 Alternatives

Bachelors, Civil Engineering. Over 12 years experience in final design, special trackwork, 

transportation planning and construction cost estimating. 

Benjamin Fischer – Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

Masters, Urban & Regional Planning. Over 2 years of experience in transportation and 

environmental planning, NEPA documentation and public outreach and agency coordination.

Lawrence Frame – Project Scheduling and Public Involvement

Bachelors, Civil Engineering. More than 35 years of experience in various areas of transportation 

engineering and planning, including environmental and permitting aspects.

Joseph G. Grilli, P.E. – EIS Coordinator and Author/Editor

Bachelors, Civil Engineering. More than 30 years experience in transportation planning, NEPA 

documentation and environmental permitting.

Kevin Horgan, RLA, LEED AP – Technical Support, Document Editing, Existing Conditions and 

Environmental Impacts Research

Masters, Landscape Architecture. Over 20 years experience in Landscape Architecture with an 

emphasis on environmental sensitivity and historic preservation of public open spaces, including 

transportation projects.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 31 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Preparers

Steven Jurow – Technical Support (ridership and revenue forecasting), Author of Financial 

and Alternatives Evaluation Chapters

Masters, Transportation Planning and Engineering, Bachelor, Mechanical Engineering. Forty years 

of experience in public transportation analysis, environmental management, documentation and 

permitting, and capital transit project management.

Addie Kim – EIS Author/Editor

Masters, Geological Sciences. More than 20 years experience in NEPA documentation,

transportation, environmental planning, and permitting.

Peter Melewski, P.E. – Project Manager for Railroad Retainer Agreement (Tier 1 EIS one of 

the assignments under the agreement). Also led Public Involvement Task.

BS in Civil Engineering. MS in Urban & Environmental Studies. 30 years of public/private 

transportation and planning experience with major projects and corridor studies across New York 

State.

Glenn Ridsdale PE – Project Quality Manager

Masters, Engineering and Masters, Organizational Leadership. More than 35 years experience in 

Project Management and Delivery, Facilities and Environmental Management, Quality Management 

and Organizational Performance. 

Kevin Williams – Ridership Forecasting and Market Analysis

Juris Doctor, Law; Masters, Urban and Regional Planning. Over 15 years of experience in 

transportation planning and transit oriented development which includes ridership demand 

forecasting, station and transit services alternatives assessment, cost benefit analysis, and design of 

access improvements for stations.

Clough Harbour & Associates

Robert Badger – CHA Project Principal, Technical Advisor

Bachelors and Masters degrees in Civil Engineering. Over 35 years of experience in transportation 

planning and design with focus on railroad engineering, including 10 years working directly for a 

railroad operator. 

Dave Emerich – Engineering Lead, Alternative 90A

Bachelors, Civil Engineering. Over 12 years experience in transportation design, including highway 

design, railroad design, contract plan development, , transportation planning and construction cost 

estimating.

Page 32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
List of Preparers Tier 1 Draft EIS

Louis T. Klauder and Associates

F. William Lipfert, Jr. – Rail Operations Planning Task Lead

Bachelors, Engineering Science. More than 30 years experience in rail operations planning, capacity 

analysis, simulation modeling and O&M cost model development.

John W. Schumann – Operations & Maintenance Costs

Masters, Civil Engineering. More than 35 years of experience in rail operations planning and 

development of Operations & Maintenance cost models.

Nicholas Willey – Rail Operations Planning

Masters, Engineering Management. Three years of experience in freight/passenger rail corridor 

analysis and simulation modeling.

AKRF, INC.

Eryn Brennen – Historic and Cultural resources

Masters, Urban Planning; Masters, Architectural History/Historic Preservation. Over 10 years of 

experience in historic preservation planning, historic and cultural resources assessment, and 

project planning for new construction in historic districts.

Robert F. Conway, P.E. – Project Manager

Masters, Civil Engineering. More than 30 years of experience in modeling pollutant fate for 

transportation projects and project management in NEPA Environmental Impact Statements.

Hillel Hammer – Air Quality; Energy and Climate Change

Masters, Environmental Engineering. Over 16 years of experience in climate, microclimate, and air 

quality modeling, analysis, and policy development.

Mei Mei Lee, AICP – Deputy Project Manager

Bachelors, Natural Resources. Over 15 years of experience in transportation planning, preparation 

of state and federal environmental permit applications, and Environmental Impact Statements.

Molly McDonald, RPA – Section 106 Process Manager; Historic and Cultural Resources

Masters, Buildings Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Approximately 12 years of experience

with expertise in history, archaeology and analysis of urban design and aesthetic considerations.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 33

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Preparers

Jennifer Morris, AICP – Historic and Cultural Resources

Masters, Historic Preservation. Over 13 years of experience with expertise in the analysis of historic 

and cultural resources as well as urban design and aesthetic considerations.

Stephen Rosen, Ph.D. – Noise and Vibration

Ph.D., Mechanaical Engineering. More than 35 years of engineering experience specializing in 

environmental analysis and the management of large interdisciplinary environmental projects with 

expertise in air quality and noise analyses.

Jordan Schular – GIS Specialist

Masters, Urban Planning. Over 5 years of experience in GIS, geospatial data management, ArcGIS 

training, geocoding, cartographic design and implementing ArcIMS web services.

Sheveta Sharma, E.I.T. – Air Quality

Masters, Environmental Engineering. Over 6 years of experience in air quality modeling, and 

analysis.

Weixiong Wu, Ph.D.- Noise and Vibration

Ph.D., Urban Acoustics. Over 18 years of experience in noise and vibration assessments of various 

environmental projects.

Pinyon Environmental, Inc.

Scott Epstein, Environmental Scientist – Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waterbodies and 

Watercources, Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers, Navigable Waters, Aquifers, 

Environmental Justice, Contaminated and Hazardous Materials

Bachelors, Environmental Science. More than 8 years experience in NEPA documentation, 

transportation, environmental planning and permitting.

Jillian Mauer, Environmental Scientist –Contaminated and Hazardous Materials

Bachelors, Environmental Studies. More than 4 years experience in site assessments, technical 

environmental investigations as well as environmental permitting, monitoring and remediation.

Page 34 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
List of Preparers Tier 1 Draft EIS

Matt Santo, Environmental Scientist – Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waterbodies and 

Watercources, Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers, Navigable Waters, Aquifers, 

Environmental Justice

Bachelors, Botany. More than 7 years experience in biological/vegetative surveys, wildlife species 

assessments, wetland delineations, GIS and GPS mapping and NEPA documentation.

Kathy Simmonds, RLA, AICP, LEED AP – Visual Impact Assessment

Bachelors, Landscape Architecture. More than 30 years experience in sustainable planning, site 

design, visual impact assessments and environmental impact statements in both the public and 

private sector.

Rosalie Wilson, Biologist – Wetlands, General Ecology and Wildlife Resources, Critical 

Environmental Areas

Bachelors, Environmental Science. More than 7 years experience in ecology, biology and wetlands.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 35

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation