New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................ix

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

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

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

1.2 Project Description – Proposed Action ................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Project Study Area ..................................................................................................1-4

2 Purpose and Need........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Need for Intercity Passenger Rail Improvements ................................................... 2-1

2.3 Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................2-3

2.4 Coordination with Other Initiatives .......................................................................... 2-6

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

3.1 Two-Phase Alternatives Evaluation ........................................................................ 3-1

3.2 No-Build Alternative ..............................................................................................3-27

3.3 Preferred Service Alternative ................................................................................ 3-27

3.4 Next Steps and Anticipated Tier 2 Projects with Separate NEPA Documents............ 3-27

4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................................4-1

4.1 Overview of the Project...........................................................................................4-1

4.2 Resources Not Included..........................................................................................4-3

4.3 Transportation.........................................................................................................4-3

4.4 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................4-19

4.5 Noise.....................................................................................................................4-25

4.6 Vibration................................................................................................................4-39

4.7 Water Resources ..................................................................................................4-46

4.8 Wetlands ...............................................................................................................4-52

4.9 Floodplains............................................................................................................4-55

4.10 Ecological Systems...............................................................................................4-60

4.11 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................. 4-64

4.12 Land Use...............................................................................................................4-69

4.13 Socio-Economic Environment............................................................................... 4-73

4.14 Environmental Justice...........................................................................................4-78

4.15 Public Health and Safety.......................................................................................4-82

4.16 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................4-85

4.17 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources ............................................................... 4-93

4.18 Energy...................................................................................................................4-97

4.19 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................... 4-99

4.20 Construction Period Impacts............................................................................... 4-104

4.21 Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts................................................................ 4-105

4.22 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 4-112

Table of Contents i Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

5 Agency and Railroad Coordination and Public Involvement...................................5-1

5.1 Agency and Railroad Coordination ......................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Public Involvement..................................................................................................5-3

6 References .....................................................................................................................6-1

7 Distribution ..................................................................................................................7-1

Table of Contents ii Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

List of Appendices

Appendix A Ridership Study

Appendix B Capital Cost Estimate

Appendix C Mesoscale Analysis

Appendix D Section 106 Consultation

Appendix E List of Preparers

Table of Contents iii Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents iv Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

List of Tables

Table No. Description Page

Table 3-1 Phase One Construction Cost and Ridership ......................................................... 3-9

Table 3-2 Phase One Evaluation Rankings Summary.......................................................... 3-10

Table 3-3 Stations with Train Service ................................................................................... 3-14

Table 3-4 Cumulative Travel Time ........................................................................................ 3-15

Table 3-5 Directness/Travel Time Evaluation Summary....................................................... 3-16

Table 3-6 Intermodal Connections Summary........................................................................ 3-16

Table 3-7 Annual Ridership Forecasts1................................................................................. 3-17

Table 3-8 Accessibility and Connections Evaluation Summary ............................................ 3-18

Table 3-9 Smart Growth, Economic Development and TOD Support Evaluation Summary 3-19

Table 3-10 Cost Evaluation Summary (2012)......................................................................... 3-19

Table 3-11 O&M Cost Components ........................................................................................ 3-20

Table 3-12 Constructability Evaluation Summary ................................................................... 3-21

Table 3-13 Sustainability Evaluation Summary....................................................................... 3-21

Table 3-14 Additional Capacity Evaluation Summary ............................................................. 3-22

Table 3-15 Reliability/Flexibility Evaluation Summary............................................................. 3-22

Table 3-16 Multi-Modal Operations Evaluation Summary....................................................... 3-23

Table 3-17 Environmental Impact Evaluation Summary ......................................................... 3-24

Table 3-18 Summary of Other Impacts ................................................................................... 3-25

Table 3-19 Summary of Evaluation Scores............................................................................. 3-28

Table 3-20 Track Improvements ............................................................................................. 3-30

Table 4-1 Summary of Railroad Segments ............................................................................. 4-2

Table 4-2 Traffic Volumes on Major Project Study Area Roadways ....................................... 4-7

Table 4-3 Amtrak Annual Passenger Trips ............................................................................. 4-8

Table 4-4 Commercial Airports Annual Passenger Boardings.............................................. 4-10

Table 4-5 Annual Ridership Forecasts1................................................................................. 4-19

Table 4-6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................ 4-22

Table of Contents v Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table No. Description Page

Table 4-7 NAAQS Attainment Status of Counties in the Project Study Area1....................... 4-25

Table 4-8 Mesoscale Mobile Source Analysis Results: Emissions Reduction...................... 4-26

Table 4-9 Noise Impact Analysis Results.............................................................................. 4-37

Table 4-10 FTA Ground-borne Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria ....................................... 4-43

Table 4-11 FTA Ground-borne Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria for Special Buildings ..... 4-44

Table 4-12 Distance to Potential Vibration Impact (ft)............................................................. 4-45

Table 4-13 Summary of Surface Water and Groundwater Resources.................................... 4-55

Table 4-14 Summary of Wetlands, by Segment ..................................................................... 4-58

Table 4-15 Summary of Floodplains, by Segment.................................................................. 4-64

Table 4-16 Population and Employment by Project Study Area County................................. 4-78

Table 4-17 Environmental Justice Communities..................................................................... 4-84

Table 4-18 Summary of At-grade Crossings and Speed Limits .............................................. 4-88

Table 4-18 Summary of At-grade Crossings and Speed Limits (continued)........................... 4-89

Table 4-19 Summary of Potential Effects to Above-ground Resources.................................. 4-97

Table 4-20 Summary of Archaeological Sensitivity by Segment............................................. 4-98

Table 4-21 Summary of Section 4(f) Properties, by Segment............................................... 4-101

Table 4-22 Existing Daily Train Energy Use ......................................................................... 4-103

Table 4-23 Future Daily Energy Use and Resulting GHG Emissions ................................... 4-104

Table 5-1 Possible Permits or Approvals ................................................................................ 5-3

Table of Contents vi Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

List of Figures

Figure Description Page

1-1 Project Study Area .......................................................................................... 1-2

1-2 Proposed Action – New Service to Rutland, VT ............................................. 1-3

3-1 Study Segments.............................................................................................. 3-2

3-2 Alternative 1 – No-Build .................................................................................. 3-3

3-3 Alternative 2 – Loop Service ........................................................................... 3-4

3-4 Alternative 3 – New Service to Manchester, VT ............................................. 3-5

3-5 Alternative 4 – New Service to Rutland, VT.................................................... 3-6

3-6 Alternative 5 – Reroute Ethan Allen................................................................ 3-7

3-7 Alternative 6 – Split Shuttle Service................................................................ 3-8

4-1 Transportation Systems, Existing Conditions ................................................. 4-4

4-2 FRA Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................................ 4-31

Table of Contents vii Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents viii Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT Average Annual Daily Trips

ABRB Albany-Bennington-Rutland-Burlington

AM Ante Meridiem

BCRC Bennington County Regional Commission

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CDTA Capital District Transportation Authority

CEQ CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental 

Policy Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CLP Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CP Canadian Pacific Railway

CPF Canadian Pacific Railway, Freight Subdivision

CTC Centralized Traffic Control

CWR Continuous-Welded Rail

D&H RR Delaware and Hudson Railroad

dB Decibels

dBA A-weighted Decibels

DOT US Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

ESPA Empire State Passenger’s Association

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GGFT Greater Glens Falls Transit

GMRR Green Mountain Railroad

GMX Green Mountain Community Network, Inc.

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

Hz Hertz

I Interstate

Ldn Day-Night Sound Level

Leq Hourly Energy-Average Sound Level, or

Hourly Equivalent Sound Level

Table of Contents ix Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MCD Minor Civil Division

MOE Measures of effectiveness

Mpg Miles per gallon

MVRTD Marble Valley Regional Transit District

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National 

Marine Fisheries Service

NNHP Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department – Nongame and Natural 

Heritage Program

NO Nitric Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NWI National Wetland Inventory

NY New York

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program

NYOPRHP New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

NY-VT New York-Vermont

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PAR Pan Am Railways

PM Particulate Matter

Post Meridiem

PMT Project Management Team

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

RINA Rare and Irreplaceable Natural Areas

rms Root Mean Square

RRPC Rutland Regional Planning Commission

SHPO State Historic Preservation Offices

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SUNY State University of New York

“The Bus” Marble Valley Regional Transit District

TOD Transit-Oriented Development

TPC Train Performance Calculator

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USFWS US Department of Interior – Fish & Wildlife Service

VCGI Vermont Center for Geographic Information

VdB Vibration Decibels

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

Table of Contents x Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

VRAN Vermont Rail Action Network

VRS Vermont Rail Systems

VSWI Vermont State Wetland Inventory

VT Vermont

VTDEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

VTDHP Vermont Division for Historic Preservation

VTR Vermont Railway

VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation

Table of Contents xi Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table of Contents xii Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

ES

Executive Summary

The New York-Vermont Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study project is an initiative 

of the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) and the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to identify and establish an efficient,

intercity passenger rail-based transportation link that will benefit un-served and 

underserved communities in southwestern Vermont and eastern central New York.

This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify 

the preferred service alternative and evaluate the potential impacts that the project 

may have to the natural and human environment. The Proposed Action would retain

the existing Ethan Allen service through east-central New York to Rutland, Vermont 

and add new service through southwest Vermont to Rutland. The existing Ethan 

Allen service operates between Rutland, Vermont and Albany/Rensselaer New York 

with stops in Castleton, Vermont and Whitehall, Fort Edward, Saratoga Springs, and 

Schenectady, New York. The new service would operate between Rutland, Vermont 

and Albany/Rensselaer, New York through southwest Vermont with stops in 

Mechanicville, New York and North Bennington and Manchester, Vermont.

Project funding would come from a federal grant from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and state funding from Vermont and New York. In order to 

use federal funding, the project requires review under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). A two-phase alternatives evaluation was undertaken to identify 

and screen service alternatives to address mobility and transportation needs in the 

study area. In Phase One, six alternatives were developed. All six of the alternatives 

would utilize existing, active rail lines. Two route alternatives emerged from the 

Phase One Screening to continue into the Phase Two Screening:

 Alternative 1: New Service to Rutland

 Alternative 2: Rerouted Ethan Allen Service

These two Build Alternatives were evaluated with respect to a set of performance 

criteria. Alternative 1, New Service to Rutland, VT, was determined to best meet the 

evaluation criteria and was advanced for an assessment of impacts in comparison to 

the No-Build Alternative. The analysis was completed as a Service Level review, 

based on anticipated infrastructure improvement requirements along the existing rail 

lines within the current railroad right-of-way. Three new stations (in Manchester and 

Executive Summary ES-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

North Bennington, VT, and Mechanicville, NY) would likely require property 

acquisition outside of the existing right-of-way. Environmental assessment of these 

station sites may be completed in future Project Level NEPA documents.

The Service Level review of the Proposed Action Alternative provided in this 

Environmental Assessment documents that the project would not have a significant 

direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impact to any natural or human resource. The 

project is likely to result in a modest benefit to air quality and socioeconomic 

conditions. Automobile traffic would be reduced as riders chose transit for 

commuting or recreational purposes, with a concomitant reduction in exhaust 

emissions from cars. Businesses proximate to the stations are expected to benefit as 

new customers are delivered to business locations and property values may rise if 

commuters that use the transit service move to newly served communities.

Agency and railroad coordination has occurred throughout the study. The 2009

Vision for the New England High‐Speed and Intercity Rail Network collectively developed 

by the Departments of Transportation in the six New England States provides a 

vision for rail in the region and a commitment to work together to coordinate efforts.

The planning and project development activities have been a cooperative and 

collaborative effort by VTrans and NYSDOT, in cooperation with the FRA. VTrans 

serves as the overall project lead and is responsible for managing the Project 

Management Team, which consists of representatives from VTrans, NYSDOT, the 

Rutland Regional Planning Commission, and the Bennington County Regional 

Commission. Stakeholder Committee meetings have been held with representatives 

from VTrans, NYSDOT, FRA, potentially affected rail operators, regional planning 

agencies within the study area and various advocacy groups.

Public informational meetings have been held at various locations within the study 

area to provide the public an opportunity to learn about the scope of the proposed 

project. Public opinion and comments were documented and considered in the 

development of study recommendations. A project website, 

www.ny-vt-passengerrail.org, has been established which provides the public project 

updates, notices of meetings, links to other area organizations and studies, access to 

minutes of meetings and technical documents, and an opportunity to comment on 

the proposed project. Project newsletters have been prepared and distributed to the 

project mailing list at key milestones over the course of the study.

Executive Summary ES-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The New York-Vermont (NY-VT) Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study project is an 

initiative of the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) and the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to identify and establish an efficient, intercity 

passenger rail-based transportation link that will benefit un-served and underserved 

communities in southwestern Vermont (VT) and eastern central New York (NY).

Southwestern Vermont and eastern central New York (Figure 1-1) have limited 

transportation options. Communities have no direct access to the interstate highway 

system or a major airport, limited intercity passenger rail service, and limited 

intercity bus service. This condition has been, and continues to be, a hardship for 

residents and an impediment to economic development in the region.

Project funding would come from a federal grant from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and state funding from Vermont and New York. In order to 

use federal funding, the project requires review under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) has been 

prepared in compliance with:

 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 

as amended (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 et seq.); 

 US Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C;

 FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts1; 

 49 United States Code (USC) Section 3032; and 

 Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.

1 Federal Railroad Administration, Procedures For Considering Environmental Impacts, Revised May 26, 1999.

2 Formerly known as Section 4(f) of the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, and 

commonly referred to at Section 4(f).

Introduction 1-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Introduction 1-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This EA describes the Proposed Action and its environmental impacts. Chapter 2

discusses the Purpose and Need for the project, Chapter 3 provides a summary of the 

alternatives evaluation, Chapter 4 describes the affected environment and 

environmental consequences of the Proposed Action, and Chapter 5 provides a 

summary of the agency and railroad coordination and public involvement to date for 

the project.

1.2 Project Description – Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would retain the 

existing Ethan Allen service through eastern 

central New York and add new service 

through southwest Vermont. The existing 

Ethan Allen service operates between 

Rutland, Vermont and Albany/Rensselaer 

New York with stops in Castleton, Vermont 

and Whitehall, Fort Edward, Saratoga 

Springs, and Schenectady, New York. The 

new service would operate between Rutland, 

VT and Albany/Rensselaer, NY through 

southwest Vermont with stops in Manchester

and North Bennington, VT and 

Mechanicville, NY. Figure 1-2 is a schematic 

map of the proposed New Service to Rutland, 

VT.

The existing Ethan Allen and Adirondack 

services would continue to operate on the 

same route and at the same frequency 

(one round trip per day) as it does now. The

new service would operate one round trip 

per day. With this alternative, service to 

Castleton, VT would be retained and service 

to Manchester and North Bennington, VT

and Mechanicville, NY would be added.

Figure 1-2: Proposed Action – New Service to Rutland, VT

Introduction 1-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

1.3 Project Study Area

The project study area (Figure 1-1) includes Rutland and Bennington Counties in 

southwestern Vermont and adjacent areas in eastern central New York State, 

including Schenectady, Saratoga, Washington, Rensselaer, and Albany Counties. To 

minimize environmental impacts, the study focused on opportunities for providing 

intercity passenger rail service along existing, established rail corridors. Existing rail 

corridors within the project study area considered for potential intercity passenger 

rail service options include:

 Vermont Railway lines that extend between Rutland and Bennington, VT, and 

continue to Hoosick Junction, NY;

 Pan Am Railways’ southern main line between Hoosick Junction and 

Mechanicville, NY;

 Canadian Pacific Rail lines between Albany and Mechanicville, Mechanicville 

and Schenectady, and Schenectady and Whitehall, NY;

 CSX Rail lines between Albany and Schenectady, NY; and

 Clarendon and Pittsford lines between Whitehall, NY and Rutland, VT.

Introduction 1-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

2

Purpose and Need

This chapter defines the Purpose and Need of the NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger 

Rail project and identifies the project goals.

2.1 Project Purpose

The purpose of this project is to identify and establish an efficient, intercity passenger 

rail-based transportation link that will benefit un-served and underserved 

communities in southwestern Vermont and eastern central New York.

2.2 Need for Intercity Passenger Rail 

Improvements

Southwestern Vermont and eastern central New York have limited transportation 

options. Communities within the project study area have no direct access to the 

interstate highway system or a major airport, limited intercity passenger rail service, 

and limited intercity bus service. This condition has been, and continues to be, a 

hardship for residents and an impediment to economic development in the region.

The Capital District of New York is the gateway to the project study area from the 

south, both for highway as well as passenger rail access. Albany/Rensselaer Station 

provides connections to other services in the northeast and beyond. Schenectady is 

the secondary rail hub from which passenger rail service extends north with the 

Adirondack and Ethan Allen Express services and west via the Lake Shore Limited. 

Schenectady is also the highway hub with Interstate 88 (I-88) and I-90 providing 

access westward and I-890 linking Schenectady and Albany. Access from these 

regional centers to the eastern portion of the project study area (the Western Corridor 

of Vermont) is lacking.

I-87 provides north-south access to the communities in the New York State portion of 

the corridor, connecting Glen Falls, Fort Edward, and Saratoga Springs with Albany 

Purpose and Need 2-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

and Schenectady. The Western Corridor of Vermont – comprising the eastern half of 

the project study area – has no equivalent highway access to these regional centers. 

US Route 7 – a roadway that has limited 4-lane segments but is mostly a 2-lane 

unlimited access roadway – is the only major north-south connection for those living 

in the Western Corridor.

Passenger rail access to the project study area is provided by the Ethan Allen and 

Adirondack Amtrak services. The Ethan Allen service terminates in Rutland, VT, but 

the balance of the Western Corridor of Vermont has no passenger rail service, nor 

does Mechanicville, NY.

The lack of adequate access to the eastern half of the project study area not only 

hinders its residents from being able to travel within the Vermont portion of the 

project study area easily, it is also an impediment to attracting travelers. This is a 

significant need because tourism plays a major role in the regional economy.

Approximately four million residents in the New York City metropolitan area do not 

own a personal automobile and rely heavily on intercity passenger rail to travel the 

region. A rail connection to the Vermont portion of the project study area could 

provide an extremely attractive option, based on both cost and travel time, for these 

potential travelers. Connecting the entire study area to this type of buying power 

could stimulate significant economic development.

Intercity passenger rail improvements are needed within the project study area for 

the following reasons:

 Improved access to the eastern portion of the project study area from the south 

beyond the project study area is essential to support the tourism industry, a key 

economic engine for the project study area;

 Access from the eastern portion of the project study area to/from commercial 

centers, educational, medical and cultural facilities in the project study area is not 

an option by rail; and

 Highway access within the eastern portion of study area is limited to a single 

roadway that operates as a local road for substantial portions of its length.

Purpose and Need 2-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

2.3 Goals and Objectives

The states of Vermont and New York have identified a series of broad transportation 

goals to improve the quality and equity of transportation services within the region. 

The 2006 Vermont State Rail and Policy Plan3 identified two priorities for intercity

passenger rail: 1) continued service along routes currently served by Amtrak; and 

2) new intercity passenger rail service along the Vermont Railway between Hoosick,

NY and Burlington, VT. The 2009 New York State Rail Plan4 identified numerous 

projects along the Empire Corridor, which runs between New York City and Niagara 

Falls, NY and is one of ten federally designated high speed rail corridors in the 

United States, including three priority projects within the Albany area, which would 

facilitate increased rail service to Saratoga Springs, NY and from southwestern 

Vermont through Mechanicville, NY.

The mapped system in the 2009 Vision for the New England High Speed and Intercity 

Rail Network5 identifies existing service and potential services within the project 

study area, including the Western Corridor in Vermont and nearby New York 

communities. This region is considered an important geographical area and link to 

the overall rail system because it will provide direct intercity passenger rail 

connections to communities in southwestern Vermont, which will advance the goal 

of a continuous, integrated rail system in New England.

This project would aid both New York and Vermont in meeting their strategic rail 

transportation goals, and would improve intercity passenger rail access to those 

communities which are currently underserved or not served at all. Additionally, 

improved service, routing, infrastructure improvements, and travel times could

result in significant increases in ridership between southwestern Vermont and 

Albany, NY. The goals, associated objectives, and potential evaluation measures for 

the project are described below.

2.3.1 Extend Intercity Passenger Rail Access and 

Improve Mobility 

The lack of existing intercity passenger rail services within the eastern portion of the

project study area results in insufficient links between centers of activity including 

residential and commercial areas, and educational, medical and cultural facilities. 

This lack of access adversely affects employment opportunities for residents within 

the project study area.

3 State of Vermont, State Rail & Policy Plan, December 2006. Available at 

http://railroads.vermont.gov/railpolicyplan.htm. 

4 New York State Rail Plan 2009 – Strategies for a New Age, February 2009. Available at 

https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/planning-bureau/state-rail-plan. 

5 Vision for the New England High Speed and Intercity Rail Network, July 2009. Available at 

http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs/PR071309.pdf. 

Purpose and Need 2-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

As cited in the NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Application6, existing bus 

service is currently offered by 17 local routes with direct connections to Rutland, VT. 

Additional bus routes in Manchester and Bennington, VT could ‘feed’ into intercity 

passenger rail service. The network of these bus ‘feeder’ routes could allow for 

seamless connections between the rail and bus modes; however, intercity passenger 

rail is necessary to provide the regional connections that are currently lacking.

Improvements in connectivity would make public transportation a more compelling 

travel choice. The provision of intercity passenger rail services would increase the 

transportation options for residents trying to access economic, educational, medical, 

and recreational opportunities within the project study area and the region. It would 

also improve mobility within the greater northeast region via connections to existing 

intercity passenger rail operations.

Mobility improvements in the project study area could result in regional 

improvements by increasing accessibility for all users, including residents, 

employees, students, and tourists. Residents of the project study area would benefit 

from improved employment access, as well as reduced travel times.

Increasing mode choice options would improve efficiency and effectiveness of the 

region’s transportation system. Multimodal connections in the project study area 

between intercity passenger rail and bus services would also benefit commuters by 

improving mobility and flexibility in route choice.

Factors used in evaluating how effective each alternative is to achieve these goals 

include:

 Directness/travel time to key regional destinations;

 Availability of intermodal connections; and

 Frequency/ridership/population.

2.3.2 Support Economic Development and 

Sustainable Development

The project study area presents opportunities for economic development around 

transportation centers and throughout the region. Improved access to existing 

and/or new intercity passenger rail services would enhance connectivity to activity 

centers and commercial hubs for both residents and tourists. This proposed service, 

in coordination with local land use planning, would assist Vermont and New York in 

meeting their goals for economic growth and promoting sustainable, livable 

communities.

6 NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Application, August 2009. Available at 

http://railroads.vermont.gov/ARRA.htm. 

Purpose and Need 2-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Improved infrastructure for rail passenger service would also indirectly benefit rail 

freight service by allowing increased operating speeds and reducing in-transit time, 

making it more efficient and thus more competitive. Economic benefits would accrue 

to rail operators, industry, and business sectors in the region through investment in 

intercity passenger rail service.

Factors considered in evaluating how well proposed service options support this 

goal include:

 Accessibility and connections; and

 Opportunities for Smart Growth/economic development and support of 

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).

2.3.3 Maximize Transportation Efficiencies

Given the need for increased passenger rail capacity in the project study area and

limited funding resources, intercity passenger rail improvements should be cost 

effective and provide service that is reliable, safe, comfortable, and appealing. 

Financial resources are limited, and any investment in rail facilities and services must 

occur at the expense of other public and private investment. Therefore, total project

costs should be minimized while meeting all project goals. The project would 

promote increased operating speeds for passenger and freight service, increased load 

capacity, and improved reliability of the rail network.

Factors used to evaluate how well proposed alternatives meet this goal include:

 Costs (capital, and operations and maintenance costs);

 Constructability;

 Sustainability/funding opportunities;

 Additional capacity;

 Reliability/flexibility; and

 Impact on multi-modal operations.

2.3.4 Protect Environmental Quality

In accordance with the Vision for the New England High-Speed and Intercity Rail 

Network7, an integrated rail and transportation network would promote energy 

efficiency and improved environmental quality by diverting travelers from cars 

using highways while further enhancing movement of passengers and freight 

throughout the region. Proposed intercity passenger rail improvements must also 

support Vermont’s and New York’s goals for protecting environmental quality, as 

cited in their respective rail plans. Both the Vermont and New York State Rail Plans 

7 Ibid.

Purpose and Need 2-5 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

identify one of their missions as promoting environmental responsibility in the 

overall transportation system, thereby contributing to environmental sustainability 

and quality of life. Factors considered in comparing how well proposed service 

options meet environmental quality goals include anticipated impacts and benefits to 

natural, social and cultural resources.

2.4 Coordination with Other Initiatives

Transportation systems and economic development are closely tied together. There

are a number of past and on-going initiatives and past planning studies whose 

findings are relevant to this study. A summary of the past planning studies is 

included below.

2.4.1 Albany-Bennington-Rutland-Burlington 

Project (2004)

The purpose of this study was to identify, evaluate and prioritize the various railroad 

infrastructure improvements necessary to upgrade the Albany-Bennington-RutlandBurlington (ABRB) corridor to meet the present and future freight and passenger rail 

transportation needs for the State of Vermont. Findings and recommendations made 

from this study were:

 ABRB 1 and 2 Programs (between Manchester and North Bennington, VT): The 

preliminary work consisted of track, bridge and grade crossing rehabilitation and 

has been mostly completed.

 ABRB S Program (between Hoosick Junction, NY and North Bennington, VT):

The work primarily consisted of track, bridge and grade crossing rehabilitation 

and was partially completed.

 ABRB SC Program (between Hoosick Junction, NY and North Bennington, VT):

This program involved upgrading the ABRB corridor to FRA Class III operations 

from Hoosick Junction, NY to Burlington, VT in order to accommodate future 

freight and passenger rail service.

2.4.2 Albany-Bennington-Rutland-Burlington Rail 

Passenger Service Study (1998)

The purpose of this study was to consider the feasibility of establishing passenger 

rail service along a route between Albany, NY and Burlington, VT with intermediate 

stations in North Bennington, Manchester, Rutland, and Middlebury, VT. The overall 

goal was to provide a capital improvement plan outlining costs, tasks, and timetables 

for achieving passenger rail service. Recommendations made from this study were:

 Conduct a track inspection of the entire alignment in both Vermont and New 

York;

Purpose and Need 2-6 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Conduct strategy sessions with key stakeholders to clarify and agree upon next 

steps to advance ABRB;

 Initiate the environmental investigation process;

 Continue to engage the Rail Council and Agency of Transportation into working 

with the freight and passenger railroads on matters such as access agreements, 

infrastructure planning, operations planning and capital improvement 

programming; and

 Develop a business plan, following further advancement of the ABRB concept.

2.4.3 Western Corridor Transportation Management 

Plan (2000)

The purpose of this study was to examine transportation and area development 

conditions and proposed investment strategies for improving the transportation 

investments and efficiency of the Western Corridor of Vermont including 

Bennington, Rutland, Addison, Chittenden, and Franklin, VT. Recommendations 

made pertaining to the public transportation component of this EA were:

 Increase railroad ratings;

 Improve local circulation;

 Expand and improve public transportation service;

 Develop additional intermodal centers;

 Establish additional park-and-ride facilities;

 Expand travel demand management programs;

 Improve traveler information;

 Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations;

 Reduce border crossing delays for future passenger rail services; and

 Encourage compact, mixed-use development within towns.

Purpose and Need 2-7 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Purpose and Need 2-8 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

3

Alternatives Evaluation

This chapter describes the two-phase alternatives evaluation process and the 

selection of the Proposed Action Alternative.

3.1 Two-Phase Alternatives Evaluation

A two-phase alternatives evaluation was undertaken to identify and screen service 

alternatives to address the purpose of and need for the NY-VT Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail.

3.1.1 Phase One Evaluation of Alternatives

Six alternatives were developed to address mobility and transportation needs in the 

project study area. These alternatives were established through a review of previous 

studies8 and planning as well as a collaborative workshop. The initial alternatives 

were broadly defined to ensure that as many potentially feasible alternatives as 

possible were considered and evaluated. All six of the alternatives utilize existing, 

active rail lines within the project study area. These rail lines are primarily used for 

the movement of freight. Two route alternatives emerged from the Phase One 

Screening to continue into the Phase Two Screening and the next steps of project 

development.

8 Albany/Bennington/Rutland/Burlington Rail Passenger Service Study, VAT, 1998; Vermont Western Corridor Study –

Report to Congress, 2000; Comparative Analysis of Transp. Needs in 4 Areas of VT (VT Transp. Board), 

2004;Albany/Bennington/Rutland/Burlington Project, VTrans, 2004; VT State Rail & Policy Plan, 2006; NY State Rail 

Plan, 2009; Vision for the New England HSR and Intercity Rail Network, 2009; NY-VT HISPR Track 3 Application , 

2009; Ethan Allen HSIPR Track 2 Application, 2009; Vermont Western Corridor Management Plan – Report to 

Congress, 2010; Projected Improvements to the Vermont Railway Western Corridor, 2010

Alternatives Evaluation 3-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

For the purposes of the Phase One Screening, the 

existing rail corridors in the project study area were 

divided into ten segments (Figure 3-1). Each segment 

was reviewed to determine the capital improvements 

necessary to accommodate one additional train per 

day to correspond with the assumptions of the 

alternatives. The proposed capital improvements are 

intended to bring all tracks in the project study area up 

to FRA Class 3 standards at a minimum – such that an 

operating speed of up to 59 mph is feasible, where 

geometry and operating rules allow.

In considering the routing of a new passenger rail 

service from southwestern Vermont to Albany/

Rensselaer, NY, two options are apparent to make the 

connection between Mechanicville and Albany/

Rensselaer, NY. The first option, Segment 5 in 

Figure 3-1, is via the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) 

Colonie Line, which runs in a north-south orientation 

west of the Hudson River from Mechanicville to 

Albany/ Rensselaer, NY (CP Colonie Routing). The 

second option, Segments 6, 2, and 1 in Figure 3-1, is 

via the CP Freight Subdivision between Mechanicville 

and Schenectady, NY and the CSX Hudson 

Subdivision from Schenectady to Albany/Rensselaer, 

NY (Schenectady Routing). Both of these routing 

options have been evaluated at a conceptual level of 

definition.

3.1.1.1 Description of Phase One Alternatives

The six alternatives evaluated in Phase One included:

1. The No-Build Alternative;

2. Alternative 2, Loop Service;

3. Alternative 3, New Service to Manchester, VT;

4. Alternative 4, New Service to Rutland, VT;

5. Alternative 5, Re-routed Ethan Allen Service; and

6. Alternative 6, Split Shuttle Service.

Each of these alternatives is described below.

Figure 3-1: Study Segments

Alternatives Evaluation 3-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 1: No-Build

The No-Build Alternative consists of the existing 

transportation systems plus the currently planned 

and programmed track and service improvements in 

the project study area through the long-range 

planning horizon (year 2030). NEPA requires that 

the No-Build Alternative is included in the 

evaluation of alternatives. It is evaluated to identify

the operational and environmental effects on the 

project study area if no action is taken. Figure 3-2

provides a schematic drawing of the No-Build

Alternative.

Existing passenger rail services in the project study 

area included in the No-Build Alternative include:

 The Ethan Allen service provides 

connections between Rutland, VT and New York 

City, NY. It makes one round trip daily. Station stops 

within the project study area include Rutland and 

Castleton, VT, and Fort Edward/ Glens Falls, 

Saratoga Springs, Schenectady, and 

Albany/Rensselaer, NY.

 The Adirondack service provides 

connections between Montreal, Canada and New 

York City, NY. It makes one round trip daily. 

Station stops within the project study area include 

Whitehall, Fort Edward/Glens Falls, Saratoga 

Springs, Schenectady, and Albany/Rensselaer, NY.

The No-Build Alternative includes programmed and funded improvements to the 

existing rail infrastructure in the project study area. These improvements are:

 Addition of a fourth track at the Albany/Rensselaer, NY station ($58.1M);

 Addition of a second main line track between Albany/Rensselaer and 

Schenectady, NY ($91.2M); and

 Two miles of new track at Ballston Spa, NY to provide a 5-mile segment of 

double track extending from Saratoga Springs to Ballston Spa, NY ($6.6M).

Figure 3-2: Alternative 1 – No-Build

Alternatives Evaluation 3-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 2: Loop Service

Alternative 2 would provide “loop” service 

connecting stations in Albany/Rensselaer, 

Mechanicville, Schenectady, Saratoga Springs, and 

Fort Edward/Glens Falls, NY; and Castleton, 

Rutland, Manchester, and North Bennington, VT. 

Figure 3-3 is a schematic map of the Loop Service

Alternative.

Alternative 2 would require one additional trainset 

to provide connecting service out of the Albany/

Rensselaer, NY station. The additional trainset 

would operate in one direction (clockwise or 

counterclockwise) providing one new round trip 

per day.

In Alternative 2 the existing Ethan Allen and 

Adirondack services would continue to operate on 

the same routes and frequencies (one round trip 

per day for both) as they do now.

This alternative would introduce service to 

Manchester and North Bennington, VT and to 

Figure 3-3: Alternative 2 – Loop Service Mechanicville, NY.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 3: New Service to Manchester, VT

Alternative 3 would provide new service to southwest 

Vermont with a terminus in Manchester. Figure 3-4 is 

a schematic map of the New Service to Manchester, 

VT Alternative.

This alternative would extend service from the 

Albany/Rensselaer, NY station to new stations in 

Mechanicville, NY and Manchester and North 

Bennington, VT. Alternative 3 would provide 

one round trip per day.

During the public review of the proposed service 

alternatives, it was suggested that a through service (no 

transfer at Albany/Rensselaer, NY, for continued service 

southbound along the Empire Corridor) would be 

preferred over a connecting service at Albany/

Rensselaer, NY (if trains terminate at this station, a transfer 

is required). For Alternative 3 to operate as a through 

service, an existing Empire Corridor train that currently 

terminates in Albany/Rensselaer, NY would be extended 

to Manchester, VT.

In Alternative 3 the existing Ethan Allen and 

Adirondack services would continue to operate on 

the same routes and frequencies (one round trip per 

day for both) as they do now. It would provide new 

service to Manchester and North Bennington Center, 

VT and Mechanicville, NY but would not connect 

between Manchester Center and Rutland, VT.

Figure 3-4: Alternative 3 – New Service to Manchester, VT

Alternatives Evaluation 3-5 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 4: New Service to Rutland, VT

Alternative 4 would extend service to southwest 

Vermont with a terminus in Rutland, VT. Figure 3-5

is a schematic map of the New Service to Rutland, 

VT Alternative.

This alternative would operate out of Albany/

Rensselaer, NY station connecting to new stations in 

Mechanicville, NY and North Bennington and 

Manchester, VT, en route to a terminus in Rutland, VT. 

Alternative 4 would operate one round trip per day.

Similar to Alternative 3, a preference for through 

service (no transfer needed for service beyond 

Albany/Rensselaer, NY, along the Empire Corridor) 

over a connecting service at Albany/Rensselaer, NY

(trains terminate at this station, transfer required)

was expressed by the public. To operate 

Alternative 4 as a through service, an existing 

Empire Corridor train that currently terminates at 

Albany/Rensselaer, NY would be extended to 

Rutland, VT.

In Alternative 4 the Ethan Allen and Adirondack 

services would continue to operate on the same 

routes and frequencies (one round trip per day for 

both) as they do now. Alternative 4 would provide 

new service to Manchester and North Bennington, 

VT and Mechanicville, NY.

Figure 3-5: Alternative 4 – New Service to Rutland, VT

Alternatives Evaluation 3-6 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 5: Rerouted Ethan Allen Service

Alternative 5 would re-route the existing Ethan 

Allen service through southwest Vermont. The 

alternative would operate between Rutland, VT 

and Albany/Rensselaer, NY through southwest 

Vermont with stops in Mechanicville, NY and 

North Bennington and Manchester, VT. Figure 3-6

is a schematic map of the Rerouted Ethan Allen 

Service Alternative.

In Alternative 5 the existing Adirondack service 

would continue to operate on the same route and 

at the same frequency (one round trip per day) as it 

does now. The Ethan Allen service would operate 

one round trip per day.

With this alternative, service to Castleton would be 

eliminated while service to Manchester and North 

Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY would be 

added.

Figure 3-6: Alternative 5 – Reroute Ethan Allen

Alternatives Evaluation 3-7 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 6: Split Shuttle Service

Alternative 6 would be a “shuttle” service connecting 

Albany/Rensselaer, NY and Rutland, VT via two routes. 

The termini for both services would be Albany/

Rensselaer, NY on the south end and Rutland, VT on the 

north end. One service would stop in Mechanicville, NY 

and North Bennington and Manchester, VT. The other 

service would follow the same route as the existing Ethan 

Allen service, stopping at Castleton, VT and Fort 

Edward/Glens Falls, Saratoga Springs, and Schenectady, 

NY. Each service would operate on one side of the loop 

and provide round-trip service (“out and back”) – for a 

total of two trains per day on each side of the loop. 

Figure 3-7 is a schematic map of the Split Service Shuttle 

Alternative.

In Alternative 6 the existing Ethan Allen and Adirondack 

services would continue to operate on the same 

frequencies (one round trip per day for each) as they do 

now. This alternative would provide new service to 

Manchester and North Bennington, VT and 

Mechanicville, NY.

Figure 3-7: Alternative 6 – Split Shuttle Service

Alternatives Evaluation 3-8 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

3.1.1.2 Phase One Screening

The goal of the Phase One Screening is to objectively identify and evaluate the 

universe of alternatives and identify those that best satisfy the project Purpose and 

Need. During the Phase One Screening, the alternatives were evaluated in a 

conceptual manner. The Phase One Screening process included a determination of 

the basic realistic feasibility of each alternative, and considered the four categories of 

project goals:

 Rail access and mobility;

 Transportation efficiencies;

 Economic/sustainable development; and

 Environmental quality.

This section provides a brief summary of the major advantages and disadvantages 

for each of the Phase One alternatives, as well as recommendations regarding which 

alternatives should advance into the Phase Two Screening. Table 3-1 summarizes the 

construction cost and ridership for the six Phase One alternatives. Table 3-2

summarizes the rankings with respect to each category of project goals.

Table 3-1 Phase One Construction Cost and Ridership

Cost ($2011) Total Ridership (2030)1

Alternative Via CP Colonie Via Schenectady Via CP Colonie Via Schenectady

Alternative 1 – No-Build – – 5,700 5,700

Alternative 2 – Loop Service $210.4M $154.7M – –

Alternative 3 – New Service to Manchester $135.0M $89.7M 108,900 114,200

Alternative 4 – New Service to Rutland $160.1M $114.8M 116,200 123,300

Alternative 4 – Rerouted Ethan Allen $160.1M $114.8M 107,000 112,700

Alternative 6 – Split Shuttle $210.4M $154.7M 109,000 114,100

1 One-way boardings

Alternatives Evaluation 3-9 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-2 Phase One Evaluation Rankings Summary

Criterion Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Rail Access and Mobility

Improve regional mobility      

Travel time savings      

Attractive frequency of service      

Transportation Efficiency

Viable intermodal connections      

Cost efficient?      

Maximize use of existing infrastructure?      

Minimize impacts on existing operations post-construction?      

Minimize impacts on existing operations during construction?      

Economic/Sustainable Development

Support Smart Growth and Economic Development?      

Environmental Quality

Minimize potential impacts?      

Result in positive impacts?      

 = positive;  = potential negative impact;  = no/neutral impact

Alternative 1: No-Build

The main advantage of the No-Build Alternative is that it has no implementation 

costs (capital or operating) associated with it. The major disadvantage of the 

No-Build Alternative is that those areas currently lacking intercity passenger rail 

service will continue to be un-served.

The No-Build Alternative was carried through the two-phase screening process to 

meet NEPA requirements.

Alternative 2: Loop Service

Although Alternative 2 would provide new service to currently un-served areas in 

southwest Vermont, it was determined early in the process that the loop routing 

would prove to be inefficient and, therefore, unattractive to potential choice riders. 

Alternative 2 would also be one of the most expensive alternatives to implement, 

since capital improvements would be required on most of the analysis segments 

throughout the project study area by this alternative.

Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration prior to developing 

ridership projections. The alternative was eliminated because potential negative 

impacts are expected for five of the 11 Phase One criteria, while a positive impact is 

expected for only one criterion.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-10 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 3: New Service to Manchester, VT

Alternative 3 would provide new service to Bennington County (with stations in 

Manchester and North Bennington, VT); however the lack of connectivity between 

Manchester and Rutland, VT has been criticized by project stakeholders who note the 

substantial demand for travel between these two areas.

This alternative is anticipated to require the lowest capital cost expenditure (since the 

service area, and therefore amount of track that needs to be improved, is smaller than 

the other build alternatives); however, a maintenance facility would be required if 

Manchester, VT is used as a terminal stop. This maintenance facility would be 

abandoned if the service were eventually extended to Rutland, VT. The anticipated 

operating costs for Alternative 3 are moderate compared to the other build 

alternatives.

While no negative impacts are expected for any of the Phase One screening criteria, it 

was recommended that this alternative be removed from consideration and not move 

on to the Phase Two Screening. The lack of the rail connection between Manchester 

and Rutland, VT is a key stakeholder concern, and that connection is addressed by 

other alternatives without the need to construct a new maintenance facility that could 

ultimately be abandoned.

Alternative 4: New Service to Rutland, VT

Alternative 4 would provide new service to Rutland and Bennington Counties, VT

and provide a key link along the Western Corridor which has been identified as a 

key rail corridor for the state. Alternative 4 supports the goals and objectives stated 

in the project Purpose and Need and the anticipated capital and operating costs are 

moderate compared to the other alternatives. This alternative is also forecast to 

produce the greatest increase in annual ridership.

Alternative 4 is expected to have no negative impacts on any of the Phase One 

screening criteria; positive impacts are expected for six criteria. It was recommended 

that Alternative 4 move forward into the Phase Two Screening for further evaluation.

Alternative 5: Rerouted Ethan Allen Service

Alternative 5 would provide new service to Rutland and Bennington Counties, VT

and provide a key link along the Western Corridor which has been identified as a 

key rail corridor for the state. This alternative is estimated to have the lowest 

operating cost of all of the build alternatives. The operating cost is a key 

consideration for the State of Vermont, which already sponsors the Ethan Allen and 

the Vermonter services.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-11 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

The major disadvantage of Alternative 5 is that it would reduce service from portions 

of the New York side of the project study area. This alternative is projected to 

produce the smallest increase in annual ridership – likely due to the reduction of 

service in a portion of the project study area.

Alternative 5 is not expected to have negative impacts for any of the Phase One 

screening criteria, and positive impacts are expected for four criteria. Given the 

importance of operating costs for the longevity of any service that is implemented, 

Alternative 5 was recommended to be carried forward to the Phase Two Screening 

for further evaluation.

Alternative 6: Split Shuttle Service

Alternative 6 would provide new service to Rutland and Bennington Counties, VT

and increased service to the New York portion of the project study area. This 

alternative is projected to produce the second highest increase in annual ridership. 

Despite the additional service in New York for Alternative 6, which proposes 

connecting service in Albany/Rensselaer, NY, Alternative 4 has higher ridership 

projections because it proposes through service at Albany/Rensselaer, NY.

Due to the wide coverage Alternative 6 proposes, capital improvements would be 

required on most of the analysis segments by this alternative, making it one of the 

most expensive from a capital cost perspective. Alternative 6 would also have the 

highest operating cost of all the build alternatives.

Alternative 6 would have negative impacts for two of the Phase One screening 

criteria; positive impacts are expected for six criteria. It was recommended that 

Alternative 6 be removed from consideration and not move on to the Phase Two 

Screening.

3.1.1.3 Summary of Recommendations

From the initial set of alternatives, two Build Alternatives were recommended to 

advance to the Phase Two Screening process:

 Alternative 4: New Service to Rutland, VT; and

 Alternative 5: Rerouted Ethan Allen Service.

These two alternatives were recommended to move forward to the Phase Two 

analyses because, based on their performance in the Phase One Screening, they 

exhibit the greatest potential to satisfy the project Purpose and Need. For the 

connection from Rensselaer/Albany Station to Mechanicville, NY, the “Schenectady

Routing” was selected.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-12 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

3.1.2 Phase Two Evaluation of Alternatives

The purpose of the Phase Two screening process was to identify the Preferred 

Alternative for the project. During the Phase One screening the initial set of proposed 

alternatives was narrowed down to two Build Alternatives plus the No-Build

Alternative based on criteria developed in accordance with the goals from the project

Purpose and Need.

For the Phase Two evaluation, the Build Alternatives that were advanced from the 

Phase One screening were defined to a greater level of detail. The following analyses 

were developed for the No-Build Alternative and the two Build Alternatives that 

advanced past the Phase One screen:

 Capital costs;

 Operations and maintenance costs;

 Ridership estimates;

 Operational analysis/operating plans; and

 Review of environmental impacts.

Based on the compiled data and analyses, a detailed assessment of each alternative 

was performed as part of the Phase Two screening. The alternatives were evaluated 

against each of the criteria described below and are scored on a scale of +2 

(alternative is expected to have a highly favorable impact), to -2 (alternative is 

expected to have a highly unfavorable impact) in each category. A brief description 

of why the alternatives scored as they did is included. The scores for each of the 

25 criteria are then summarized to produce a composite score for each goal and a 

best fit alternative is identified for each goal. The alternatives advanced into Phase 2 

were:

 The No-Build Alternative;

 Alternative 1: New Service to Rutland, VT (Alternative 4 in Phase One); and

 Alternative 2: Rerouted Ethan Allen Service (Alternative 5 in Phase One).

3.1.2.1 Phase Two Screening

This section includes a discussion of how the No-Build and two Build Alternatives 

perform with respect to each of the criteria identified in the evaluation methodology. 

The alternatives are compared with respect to each criterion, and a summary 

evaluation table is provided at the end of the section.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-13 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Goal 1: Extend Intercity Passenger Rail Access and Improve Mobility

Directness/Travel Time to Key Regional Destinations

This criterion focuses on the directness of the trip to key regional destinations within 

the project study area. The measures of effectiveness (MOE) used to evaluate this 

criterion are:

 The number of stations that would have train service;

 Transfers required; and

 Cumulative travel time.

Directness to Key Regional Destinations

A need identified in the project Purpose and Need is to provide better access to train 

service in the project study area – particularly in southwestern Vermont. Providing 

rail access to more towns within the project study area will open up better access to

regional attractors near the stations. For existing stations within the project study 

area, regional destinations have, in many cases, developed around the stations. The 

proposed new stations would be placed in locations that are proximate to the highest 

numbers of regional attractions – in the respective town centers – are along viable 

(existing) track, and are currently un-served. Table 3-3 indicates the stations (both 

existing and proposed) that will be served under each alternative.

Table 3-3 Stations with Train Service

Station No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Rutland, VT   

Manchester, VT  

North Bennington, VT  

Mechanicville, NY  

Albany/Rensselaer, NY   

Schenectady, NY   

Saratoga Springs, NY   

Ft. Edward/Glens Falls, NY   

Whitehall, NY   

Castleton, VT  

Rutland, VT   

Note: Assumes shuttle bus service is available from the Stations to the ski resorts and other attractions.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-14 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 1 provides the best access/coverage in the project study area since it retains 

the Ethan Allen service and also adds service along the Western Corridor of Vermont. 

Alternative 2 also maintains coverage through the New York portion of the project 

study area (via the Adirondack service), as well as provide access along the Western 

Corridor; however, Castleton, VT Station would not be served under this alternative. 

The No-Build Alternative maintains the existing service pattern, and the Western 

Corridor would continue to not be served (except for the existing station at 

Rutland, VT).

Transfers Required

The major difference between the three alternatives is related to how many transfers 

are required to access each of the station areas in the project study area:

 The No-Build Alternative would require travelers to make a transfer (bus or car) 

to access the Western Corridor and Mechanicville, NY.

 Alternative 1 provides access to all station areas, with no transfers needed.

 Alternative 2 would provide access to the majority of the stations within the 

project study area; however a transfer (bus or car) would be required (likely at 

Rutland Station, VT) to get to Castleton, VT.

Cumulative Travel Time

The travel time from Schenectady Station, NY to the other stations north and west is 

provided in Table 3-4. The times are based on travel from Schenectady, NY because 

the run times from Albany to Schenectady, NY are equal for all three alternatives.

Table 3-4 Cumulative Travel Time

Schenectady, NY to: No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Rutland, VT 2:241 2:213 2:213

Manchester, VT N/A 1:403 1:403

North Bennington, VT N/A 1:143 1:143

Mechanicville, NY N/A 0:373 0:373

Fort Edward, NY 0:461 0:461 0:502

Saratoga Springs, NY 0:261 0:261 0:282

Castleton, VT 2:001 2:001 N/A

1 Published travel times for the Ethan Allen Express (per www.amtrak.com reservation query for 10/2/12)

2 Published travel times for the Adirondack Service (per www.amtrak.com reservation query for 10/2/12)

3 Based on the Train Performance Calculator (TPC) from the Rail Traffic Controller model created for the project.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-15 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

The end-to-end (Schenectady, NY to Rutland, VT) run time is similar for each 

alternative of the three alternatives. The summary evaluation scores for each of the 

MOEs for this criterion are provided in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Directness/Travel Time Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Stations Served 0 +2 +1

Transfers Required 0 +2 +1

Cumulative Travel Time 0 0 0

Overall Rating 0 +4 +2

Availability of Intermodal Connections

This criterion is a simple measure of whether there are intermodal connections 

(local/regional buses, other rail options) available to travelers at each station. It is 

assumed that given the non-urban nature of most stations in the project study area, 

most passengers would use taxis or private vehicles to transfer between modes.

Table 3-6 summarizes the intermodal connections of the alternatives.

Table 3-6 Intermodal Connections Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Train Connections 4 5 2

Local Bus Connections 6 9 8

Regional Bus Connections 3 3 3

Overall Rating 0 +2 +1

Frequency/Ridership/Population

This criterion addresses whether the alternative will provide a frequency of service 

and/or routing that would make it an attractive transportation option by assessing 

the level of anticipated ridership. The forecast ridership of each alternative, and the 

population within 10 miles of each station – which may inform the local market for 

potential passengers, are used as measures of evaluation. Both of the Build 

Alternatives propose one round trip per day for the new service.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-16 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-7 provides the forecast annual ridership for each of the alternatives. A summary of 

the ridership estimates is included in Appendix A.

Table 3-7 Annual Ridership Forecasts1

Station

2010 

Baseline

2030

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Montreal - Ft. Ticonderoga, NY 5,200 5,700 5,700 5,700 

Rutland, VT 8,300 10,800 14,900 12,500

Castleton, VT 1,100 1,800 1,900 0

Whitehall, NY 900 1,000 1,000 1,000

Fort Edward/Glens Falls, NY 4,300 4,600 4,500 3,100

Saratoga Springs, NY 15,100 16,600 16,500 11,300

Schenectady, NY 8,100 8,400 10,300 9,200

Manchester, VT -- -- 4,400 4,400

N. Bennington, VT -- -- 6,400 6,400

Mechanicville, NY -- -- 4,600 4,600

Albany/Rensselaer, NY 3,200 3,400 3,700 3,300

Hudson – NY Penn, NY 32,400 35,900 52,100 42,600

Total 78,600 88,200 126,000 104,100

Overall Rating 0 +2 +1

1 One-way boardings.

Goal 2: Support Economic Development and Sustainable Development

Accessibility and Connections 

These sub-criteria related to accessibility and connections evaluate how each alternative 

impacts access to employment, institutional services, regional attractions and tourist 

destinations within the project study area, with a focus on whether an alternative would 

allow travelers access without needing a car. Table 3-8 provides a summary of how well 

each alternative satisfies these criteria, as well as the evaluation scoring.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-17 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-8 Accessibility and Connections Evaluation Summary

Criteria No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Accessibility/Connections to 

Employment

Provides connections 

between Rutland and 

major employers in the 

Albany Capitol District

Provides connections 

between Rutland, 

Manchester and 

Bennington and major 

employers in the Albany 

Capitol District

Provides connections 

between Rutland, 

Manchester and 

Bennington and major 

employers in the Albany 

Capitol District

Accessibility/Connections to 

Institutional Services

Provides access between 

Rutland and institutional 

services in the Albany 

Capitol District and New 

York City

Provides access between 

Rutland, Manchester and 

Bennington and 

institutional services in the 

Albany Capitol District and 

New York City

Provides access between 

Rutland, Manchester and 

Bennington and 

institutional services in the 

Albany Capitol District and 

New York City

Accessibility/Connections to 

Regional Attractions and Tourist 

Destinations

Provides access to 

regional attractions and 

destinations in the vicinity 

of Rutland

Provides access to 

regional attractions and 

destinations in the vicinity 

of Rutland, Manchester 

and Bennington

Provides access to 

regional attractions and 

destinations in the vicinity 

of Rutland, Manchester 

and Bennington

Phase Two Rating 0 +2 +2

Opportunities for Smart Growth/Economic Development and Support of Transit Oriented 

Development (TOD)

This criterion is a qualitative measure of how well each alternative supports the 

opportunities for TOD development efforts, and takes into account factors that 

would support this type of development, such as level of service, mode and location 

of new stations. Table 3-9 provides a summary of how well each alternative satisfies 

these criteria, as well as the evaluation scoring.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-18 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-9 Smart Growth, Economic Development and TOD Support 

Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Opportunities for Smart 

Growth/ Economic 

Development and 

Support of Transit 

Oriented Development 

(TOD)

Opportunities present 

in the vicinity of 

existing stations

Opportunities present 

in the vicinity of 

existing stations and 

new stations, if new 

stations are located in 

downtown areas. 

Improved access to 

regional attractions 

along Western Corridor 

will also positively 

impact economic 

development in that 

corridor.

Opportunities present 

in the vicinity of 

existing stations and 

new stations, if new 

stations are located in 

downtown areas. 

Improved access to 

regional attractions 

along Western Corridor 

will also positively 

impact economic 

development in that 

corridor. Reduction in 

service to existing

stations could have 

minor negative effect.

Phase Two Rating 0 +21 +11

1Assumes new stations are located in downtown areas.

Goal 3: Maximize Transportation Efficiencies

Alternative Costs 

These criteria provide a measure of the financial resources that will be required to 

make capital improvements (capital costs), to operate and maintain each alternative 

annually (operations and maintenance [O&M] costs). Cost per rider is also assessed. 

Table 3-10 provides the projected cost and revenue information for each alternative. 

A summary of the capital cost estimates is included in Appendix B.

Table 3-10 Cost Evaluation Summary (2012)

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Capital Cost1 $0 $112,244,000 $112,244,000

Annual O&M Cost $6,297,000 $11,748,000 $6,889,000

Annual Revenue $2,950,000 $4,431,000 $3,714,000

Net Operating Cost per Rider $33.34 $69.61 $29.52

Overall Rating 0 -2 +2

1 Assumes cost for 425-foot, high level platform at the new stations.

O&M costs for each alternative were calculated based on the operating cost for the 

existing Ethan Allen service. The estimated cost for operating the Ethan Allen service 

during Fiscal Year 2012 was used to project the cost for the build alternatives.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-19 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

The cost model is made up of two major categories: third party costs and route costs. 

Route costs consist of activities specific to running the route such as labor or route 

advertising. Third party costs are those costs paid to the host railroads so that the 

passenger service may operate over their right-of-way. Table 3-11 shows the 

estimated costs for Third Party Costs and Route Costs for FY 2012.

Table 3-11 O&M Cost Components

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Third Party Costs $868,000 $1,884,000 $1,016,000

Route Costs $5,429,000 $9,864,000 $5,873,000

Annual revenue was calculated in the ridership model for the year 2030. The 

forecasted revenue was prepared using current fares for existing station-to-station 

trips (as accessed on the Amtrak website) and developing a similar fare structure for 

the proposed new stations based on distance between origin and destination. The 

total fare revenue for each alternative was calculated by multiplying the station-tostation ridership matrix with the attendant station-to-station fare matrix. The 

2012 figures were based on the actual performance of the Ethan Allen service, 

factoring from the projected 2030 estimate for the No-Build Alternative.

Constructability

This criterion assesses whether the required infrastructure associated with each 

alternative can be built with minimum impact on the operation of existing freight and 

passenger rail services during construction. The No-Build would have no impact on 

freight and passenger rail services beyond what is already planned. There impacts 

associated with both of the Build Alternatives are expected to be minimal since the 

sidings and other proposed improvements can be constructed adjacent to the travel way 

without impacting operation. Some coordination for cut-ins of switches would be 

required. Table 3-12 gives the evaluation score for each alternative.

Table 3-12 Constructability Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Phase Two Rating 0 -1 -1

Sustainability/Funding Opportunities

This criterion evaluates whether an alternative has the potential to be financially 

sustainable. The financial stability of each alternative is related to the annual 

operating subsidy (annual O&M cost less the revenue generated). Since the state(s) 

have limited dollars, those alternatives that require fewer subsidies are preferable.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-20 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Funding and cost-sharing opportunities were also evaluated for each alternative, as 

shown in Table 3-13. VTrans and NYSDOT will cost-share on the new service, based 

on the cost-sharing agreement developed for the Ethan Allen Express.

Table 3-13 Sustainability Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Financial Sustainability: 

Subsidy Required $3,347,000 $7,318,000 $3,175,000

Funding /Cost Sharing 

Opportunities Yes Yes Yes

Phase Two Rating 0 -1 0

Additional Capacity

The Build Alternatives were analyzed to determine how much additional capacity 

would be added by implementing the proposed services. Table 3-14 summarizes the 

additional train miles, seat miles and revenue vehicle hours for each alternative, as 

well as the evaluation score.

Table 3-14 Additional Capacity Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Train Miles (Annual) 73,000 158,410 85,410

Seat Miles (Annual) 16,352,000 117% increase 

over No-Build

17% increase 

over No-Build

Revenue Vehicle Hours 2,250 4,249 1,996

Overall Rating 0 +2 +1

Reliability/Flexibility 

Operational flexibility is dependent on how well service can be provided to passengers 

when there is an obstacle or outage in some part of the system. Alternative 1 provides 

operational flexibility to passengers because they have the option to take either the 

Ethan Allen or the new service, via the Western Corridor, to travel between Rutland, 

VT and Albany, NY. Neither the No-Build nor Alternative 2 provide such flexibility.

Reliability is a function of how well the system infrastructure accommodates conflicts 

while still helping trains maintain schedules. Among the proposed improvements for 

the Build Alternatives are a number of passing sidings included to accommodate 

high traffic areas. Table 3-15 indicates the amount of funding proposed for new 

passing sidings in the Build Alternatives and also gives the summary evaluation 

score for this criterion.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-21 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-15 Reliability/Flexibility Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Operational Flexibility No Yes No

Costs of improvements to ensure reliability $0 $10,973,000 $10,973,000

Phase Two Rating 0 +2 +1

Impact on Multi-Modal Operations

This criterion measures whether current bus routes and schedules would be affected 

by each alternative; how each alternative would impact the viability of routes and 

schedule of currently available passenger rail services; and how each alternative 

would impact existing freight operations; including consideration of such factors as 

operating schedules and potential improvements in infrastructure.

The two Build Alternatives are anticipated to have similar impacts on bus operations. 

For passenger rail operations, Alternative 2 removes a frequency of service from 

several of the current Ethan Allen stations; however, all but Castleton, VT are also 

served by the Adirondack service. Both Build Alternatives entail infrastructure 

improvements that would increase the maximum allowable speed for both freight 

and passenger rail operations in some areas.

Table 3-16 includes a summary of these criteria, as well as the evaluation scoring.

Table 3-16 Multi-Modal Operations Evaluation Summary

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Impact on Bus Operations No Impact Minor re-routings to access train stations.

Impact on Passenger Rail Operations No Impact Extends one Empire 

Corridor train set.

Removes direct train service 

to Castleton, VT, reduces 

frequency of service in 

Ft. Edward and 

Saratoga Springs, NY.

Impact on Freight Operations No Impact Improves track and sidings. Improves track and sidings. 

Overall Rating 0 +2 +1

Goal 4: Protect Environmental Quality 

The environmental criteria are intended as a preliminary comparison of the 

alternatives to ensure that the alternative that is chosen as the preferred alternative 

will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment. Table 3-17

provides a summary of how well each alternative satisfies these criteria, as well as 

the evaluation scoring.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-22 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-17 Environmental Impact Evaluation Summary

Criterion No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Current Land Use No effect on existing land uses No effect on existing land uses No effect on existing land uses

Support for Planned Land Uses Supports current land use, but not 

regional plans for economic 

development

Consistent with Rutland and 

Bennington County Regional 

Plans for economic development

Consistent with Rutland and 

Bennington County Regional Plans 

for economic development

Displacement and Relocation 

Requirements

No displacements or relocations No displacements or relocations 

for sidings. Land acquisition and 

limited displacements may be 

required for new stations.

No displacements or relocations for 

sidings. Land acquisition and 

limited displacements may be 

required for new stations.

Environmental Justice No effects on low income or 

minority populations

No effects on low income or 

minority populations

No effects on low income or 

minority populations

Impacts to Historic/ 

Archaeological Resources

No effects on historic or 

architectural resources

To be determined through future 

section 106 review and 

consultation during the Tier 2 level

To be determined through future 

section 106 review and 

consultation during the Tier 2 level

Impacts to 4(f) Properties No effects to Section 4(f) 

properties

No adverse effects to Section 4(f) 

properties

No adverse effects to Section 4(f) 

properties

Traffic Impacts No significant change anticipated. Potential decrease in traffic due to 

mode switch from cars to rail for 

trips to/from newly served stations.

Potential decrease in traffic due to 

mode switch from cars to rail for 

trips to/from newly served stations.

Air Quality No effects on air quality Reduction in VOC, NOX, PM, and 

CO emissions

Reduction in VOC, NOX, PM, and 

CO emissions

Water Resources No effects on water resources No adverse effects to water 

resources

No adverse effects to water 

resources

Wetlands No effects on wetlands No adverse effects on wetlands No adverse effects on wetlands

Floodplains No effects on floodplains To be determined during Tier 2 

analysis

To be determined during Tier 2 

analysis

Ecological Systems No effects on ecological systems No significant impacts on ecological 

systems

No significant impacts on ecological 

systems

Threatened & Endangered 

Species

No effects on threatened & 

endangered species

No adverse effects on threatened & 

endangered species

No adverse effects on threatened & 

endangered species

Public Health & Safety No effects on public health Maintain or improve public health & 

safety

Maintain or improve public health & 

safety

Energy No effects on energy No significant impacts to energy No significant impacts to energy

Visual & Aesthetic Resources No effects on visual & aesthetic

resources

No significant impacts to visual & 

aesthetic resources

No significant impacts to visual & 

aesthetic resources

Noise and Vibration Impacts Existing noise and vibration 

impacts from passenger and 

freight rail traffic would continue.

Potential minor increases in noise 

and vibration at sensitive 

receptors close to the right-of-way 

along the Western Corridor and 

along existing passenger rail 

alignment from Albany to 

Schenectady due to 

new/increased service. 

Potential minor increases in noise and 

vibration at sensitive receptors close 

to the right-of-way along the Western 

Corridor and along segment from 

Albany to Schenectady due to 

new/increased service. Potential 

decrease in noise and vibration along 

segment from Schenectady to 

Rutland due to rerouted Ethan Allen.

Phase Two Rating 0 -1 -1

Alternatives Evaluation 3-23 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Other Factors

A number of other factors could affect the implementation of any of the alternatives 

being analyzed, and could make one more or less viable than the others. These 

factors include Public Support for the alternative and Project Schedule Risk. 

Public Support

This criterion considers public support for or opposition to the alternative, based on 

input at public meetings or comments on the project website.

Project Schedule Risk

This criterion considers factors that could delay implementation of the project, 

including: 

 Prerequisite projects; such projects may be necessary to satisfy operational 

requirements or to address/adhere to federal guidelines or requirements; and 

 Obtaining approvals from key stakeholders, including the potential host railroad 

owners and the state Departments of Transportation

Table 3-18 provides a summary of how each alternative is affected by these factors, as 

well as the evaluation scoring.

Table 3-18 Summary of Other Impacts

Factor No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative2

Public Support Minimal Support has been split between Alternatives 1 

and 2 at public meetings and in comments on 

the project website. Alternative 1 is praised for 

providing new service to the Western Corridor, 

while retaining all existing service in the corridor 

currently served Ethan Allen; however, it is 

acknowledged that Alternative 2 may be the 

more cost-feasible means of providing access 

to passenger rail service in the Western 

Corridor.

Prerequisite projects None None None

Approvals needed None FRA, VTrans, NY 

and VT, Pan Am, CP, 

Amtrak

FRA, VTrans, NY and 

VT, Pan Am, CP, 

Amtrak

Alternatives Evaluation 3-24 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

3.1.2.2 Summary and Conclusions

Table 3-19 includes a summary of the evaluation scores for the Phase Two screening 

criteria, and shows that:

 Both Build Alternatives propose adding service in the Western Corridor of 

Vermont, but Alternative 1 best satisfies Goal 1 because it adds service to new 

segments of the project study area without removing service from any existing 

station areas. Under Alternative 2, service would still be available along much of 

the existing Ethan Allen alignments via the Adirondack service; however, 

Castleton, VT will no longer be served by passenger rail.

 Alternatives 1 and 2 are anticipated to have a similar impact in terms of 

supporting economic development and sustainable development. The major 

driver for both of these objectives will be the placement of new stations, which 

will be the same for both alternatives. Alternative 1 ranks better for smart growth 

due to the addition of service through southwestern Vermont without reduction 

of service in eastern central New York 

 Alternative 2 best satisfies Goal 3, due in major part to the cost difference 

associated with running two services (Alternative 1) versus one service 

(Alternative 2). Alternative 2 outperforms both the No-Build and Alternative 1 in 

terms of the net cost per rider and the subsidy that would be required to support 

the service.

 All three alternatives are expected to have a similar (minimal) impact on the 

environment. Implementation of Alternative 2 could reduce noise impacts along 

the segment from Whitehall, NY to Rutland, VT if the Ethan Allen is rerouted.

As has been noted previously, the major difference between the two Build 

Alternatives is that Alternative 1 provides new service in the Western Corridor, 

while preserving both existing frequencies of service through the New York portion 

of the study area, while Alternative 2 would reroute the Ethan Allen from its existing 

alignment into the Western Corridor – leaving a single frequency of service (the 

Adirondack Service) through the New York portion of the project study area. This 

distinction has the greatest impacts on ridership and operations and maintenance 

costs; the major benefits and disadvantages for each of the Build Alternatives are 

summarized below.

Alternative 1

Benefits: Provides equivalent (to existing) or better access to passenger rail service 

throughout the study area; wider range of mode choices throughout the study area; 

operational and schedule flexibility in the New York portion of the study area, as 

compared to Alternative 2; higher anticipated ridership than Alternative 2.

Disadvantages: Higher operating cost than Alternative 2. 

Alternatives Evaluation 3-25 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative 2 

Benefits: Lower operating costs than Alternative 1; provides service to the Western 

Corridor.

Disadvantages: Removes service along the existing Ethan Allen corridor, which 

negatively impacts anticipated ridership.

Recommendation

Based on this Phase Two evaluation, Alternative 1 is the Preferred Alternative 

recommended for further development. It provides the greatest transportation 

benefit by adding new service along the Western Corridor without eliminating or

reducing service on other routes.

Table 3-19 Summary of Evaluation Scores

No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative2

Goal 1: Extend Intercity Passenger Rail Access and 

Improve Mobility 

Directness to Key Regional Destinations 0 +2 +1

Transfers Required 0 +2 +1

Cumulative Travel Time 0 0 0

Availability of Intermodal Connections 0 +2 +1

Frequency/Ridership /Population 0 +2 +1

Goal 1 Total: 0 +8 +4

Best Fit Alternative: X

Goal 2: Support Economic Development and 

Sustainable Development

Accessibility/Connections 0 +2 +2

Smart Growth 0 +2 +1

Goal 2 Total: 0 +4 +3

Best Fit Alternative: X

Goal 3: Maximize Transportation Efficiencies

Cost Evaluation 0 -2 +2

Construction Impacts on Operations 0 -1 -1

Sustainability/Funding Opportunities 0 -1 0

Additional Capacity 0 +2 +1

Reliability/Flexibility 0 +2 +1

Impacts to Rail and Bus Operations 0 +2 +1

Goal 3 Total: 0 +2 +4

Best Fit Alternative: X

Goal 4: Protect Environmental Quality

Environmental Impacts 0 -1 -1

Goal 4 Total: 0 -1 -1

Alternatives Evaluation 3-26 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Best Fit Alternative: X X

TOTAL: 0 +13 +10

Preferred Alternative: X

3.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative does not meet the project Purpose and Need. Communities 

in southwestern Vermont and eastern central New York would continue to be 

un-served or underserved by passenger rail service.

3.3 Preferred Service Alternative

The Preferred Service Alternative is Alternative 1, New Service to Rutland, VT. 

Based on the evaluation provided in this chapter, this alternative is identified as the 

Proposed Action Alternative. Chapter 4 of this Environmental Assessment compares 

the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative to the No-Build 

Alternative.

Alternative 1 retains the Ethan Allen service on its current alignment and adds a new 

service through southwest Vermont. The alternative assumes the routing from 

Albany to Mechanicville is via Schenectady.

To operate the proposed new service from Albany to Rutland via Schenectady and 

the Western Corridor, several infrastructure improvements are required to meet the 

targeted Maximum Allowable Speed (MAS) of 60MPH (at a minimum). Preliminary 

engineering has been completed to identify the necessary improvements, a summary 

of the track improvements by segment are included in Table 3-20.

3.4 Next Steps and Anticipated Tier 2 

Projects with Separate NEPA Documents

The Proposed Action is a programmatic or service-level determination by the project 

proponents and FRA. Specific Tier 2 projects will be identified during project design, 

and the appropriate level of NEPA documentation will be prepared for each element.

Specific actions likely to be included in Tier 2 and subject to separate NEPA reviews 

include:

 A new station at Manchester, VT;

 A new station at North Bennington, VT;

 A new train station at Mechanicville, NY;

Alternatives Evaluation 3-27 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Additional or relocated track or sidings needed to accommodate these stations; 

and

 Reconstructed or widened bridges over rivers and roads.

Alternatives Evaluation 3-28 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 3-20 Track Improvements

Segment Anticipated Infrastructure Improvements/Assumptions

Schenectady to 

CPF 480

• 700 ft of new mainline for new alignment through CPF 480;

• All existing public grade crossings will require warning system modifications;

• No track work required on existing mainline;

• 50-foot wide crossings;

• Signal system costs assumes electronic in-track signal system and interlocking tie-ins;

• Aplauskill River Bridge needs upgrade to run double track; and

• Two turnouts at Aplauskill River Bridge will be retired.

CPF 480 to 

Mechanicville

• 2.5 miles of new mainline/sidings for congestion relief;

• All existing public grade crossings will require warning system modifications;

• No track work required on existing mainline;

• 50-foot wide crossings;

• Signal system costs assumes electronic in-track signal system and interlocking tie-ins;

• Two #20 crossovers, one #15 crossover, three #20 turnouts, and one #15 turnout needed. Two 

turnouts need to be retired; and

• Culvert at 1528+00 needs to be extended past proposed siding.

Mechanicville to 

Hoosick

• Three new sidings totaling 4.75 miles – assume existing two sidings need no work;

• Assumed 50-foot wide crossings

• Updates to existing signal system;

• All existing public grade crossings will require warning system modifications; and

• Six new #20 turnouts needed for sidings.

Hoosick to North 

Bennington

• Existing mainline needs upgrading over entire length;

• 50-foot wide crossings;

• Every third tie is replaced, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of 

curvature to meet increased speeds;

• All existing public grade crossings will require warning system modifications;

• One mile of new siding required for congestion relief;

• Two new #20 turnouts for new siding; and 

• Culvert at 3143+00 needs to be extended past proposed siding.

North Bennington to 

Manchester

• Existing mainline needs upgrading over entire length;

• 50-foot wide crossings;

• All existing public grade crossings will require warning system modifications;

• Every third tie is replaced, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of 

curvature to meet increased speeds;

• Bridge costs assumed for only bridges labeled in POOR condition; and

• Assume VTR will allow increased passenger service without new signal system.

Manchester to 

Rutland

• Existing mainline needs upgrading over entire length;

• 50-foot wide crossings;

• All existing public grade crossings will require warning system modifications;

• Every third tie is replaced, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of 

curvature to meet increased speeds;

• Bridge costs assumed for only bridges labeled in POOR condition;

• Siding at MP 36.15 is out of service – assume addition of 3,000-foot siding;

• Two turnouts needed for new siding;

• Siding entrance moved back 500 feet to avoid intersection at Brooklyn Road; and

• Assume VTR will allow increased passenger service without new signal system. 

Alternatives Evaluation 3-29 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the existing physical, ecological system, and human resource 

conditions of the project study area and the potential environmental impacts that 

could result from implementation of the NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail 

Study Proposed Action Alternative. This chapter includes an overview of the project

and a brief summary of resources that were not evaluated as part of this assessment; 

characterizes existing conditions and potential impacts to the physical environment, 

ecological systems, and human environment within the project study area; describes 

construction period impacts; and discusses indirect and cumulative impacts; and 

summarizes the findings. The list of resources evaluated is based on FRA NEPA 

procedures and CEQ regulations.

4.1 Overview of the Project

The NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study is a “Service Level” or “Phase 1” 

study undertaken to identify and evaluate service alternatives that have the potential 

to meet the project purpose.9 Because such studies include numerous alternatives 

and extend over long corridors, project implementation may ultimately be through a 

series of smaller projects at a later date that are reviewed in more detail as “Project 

Level” or “Phase 2” projects. This Phase 1 study identifies the potential impacts of 

the preferred service alternative, based on conceptual identification of infrastructure 

improvements and railroad operations.

The analysis of the affected environment (existing conditions) and potential project 

impacts is based on an evaluation of each of the seven railroad corridor segments 

that comprise the Preferred Service Alternative described in Chapter 3, Alternatives.

Detailed descriptions of the No-Build Alternative and the Proposed Action 

9 FRA. 2009. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. Docket No. FRA-2009-0045, and Compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act in Implementing the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Alternative are provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.2, respectively. Table 4-1 summarizes

the infrastructure improvements and operations within each segment. The potential 

effects of the Proposed Action Alternative are identified by adding the impacts along 

each included segment.

Table 4-1 Summary of Railroad Segments

Segments

New Daily 

Round Trips Infrastructure Improvements

1 0 None

2 0 Construct 2 miles of new main line siding track

3 0 None

4 0 None

6 1 Construct 6 miles of new siding track

7 1

Add new second main line track on entire segment; construct new 

Mechanicville Station

8 1

Upgrade track; reconstruct all bridges rated “poor”; construct new 

North Bennington Station

9 1

Upgrade track; reconstruct all bridges rated “poor”; construct new 

Manchester Station

10 1 Upgrade track

The majority of the infrastructure improvements would be completed within the 

existing rail ROW, without additional disturbance of the natural or human 

environment. Infrastructure improvements that are likely to extend outside of the 

existing rail ROW are:

 New Manchester Station – Within Segment 9, a new station would be 

constructed in Manchester, VT;

 New North Bennington Station – Within Segment 8, a new station would be 

constructed in North Bennington, VT; and

 New Mechanicville Station – Within Segment 7, a new station would be 

constructed in Mechanicville, NY.

Since specific locations are not defined at this time, development of these stations 

would be evaluated in subsequent Project Level NEPA documents.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.2 Resources Not Included

The following resources are not included in this evaluation because they are not 

present within the project study area, or because there would be no impact:

 Wild and Scenic Rivers (not present)

 Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Barriers (not present)

 Community Cohesion (not affected by use of existing rail alignment)

4.3 Transportation

This section describes the existing conditions and potential impacts to transportation 

that may result from the No-Build Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.3.1 Methodology

The anticipated impacts to mobility, traffic, transit and freight operations are 

discussed as applicable to each segment. The ridership forecasting model developed 

for this study reports ridership by station. Traffic impact analyses at specific 

intersections were not completed as part of this study; however, a qualitative 

evaluation of impacts due to increased ridership at proposed and existing stations is 

provided.

4.3.2 Existing Conditions

Transportation options within the project study area include car, intercity passenger 

rail, bus and air services. Figure 4-1 shows major roadways, railroads, rail stations, 

and airports in the project study area.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.3.2.1 Roadways

A number of major roadways, including an Interstate highway and regional and 

secondary arterials, provide regional access for residents in the project study area 

and are summarized in this section.

Interstate Highways

I-87 (Adirondack Northway)

I-87 is an Interstate highway that extends from New York City, NY, north to the 

Canadian border via Albany, NY. It is the main north-south arterial for eastern NY 

State and is a heavily traveled commuter route. I-87 traverses both Albany and 

Saratoga counties within the project study area. This roadway generally has six lanes 

through the project study area, with three lanes running in each direction.

Regional Arterials

US 4

US 4 is a major connector through the project study area and runs north-south from 

Troy to Whitehall, NY and east-west from Whitehall, NY to Rutland, VT before 

continuing out of the project study area to Portsmouth, NH. US 4 is a two-lane 

highway through most of New York State. Upon entering Vermont just east of 

Whitehall, NY, it becomes a four-lane expressway for approximately 20 miles, 

returning to a two-lane highway near Rutland, VT.

US 7 (Ethan Allen Highway)

US 7 is the principal arterial highway in western VT running north-south through the 

Vermont portion of the project study area. It runs through both Bennington and 

Rutland Counties in Vermont. US 7 is a two-lane highway through Bennington, VT 

before becoming an expressway for three miles just north of town. The road then 

becomes a two-lane undivided freeway with frequent passing zones. North of 

Manchester, VT, the roadway varies between two and four lanes.

US 9 (Halfmoon Parkway)

US 9 is a principal north-south arterial that runs through Albany and Saratoga 

Counties in the New York portion of the project study area. When US 9 crosses the 

Mohawk River into Saratoga County, it is known as the Halfmoon Parkway. US 9 

generally runs parallel to I-87within the project study area. US 9 north of Albany, NY

is a two lane highway through the project study area.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-5 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Secondary Arterials

NY 40

NY 40 is a two lane north-south road that originates in Troy, NY and terminates at an 

intersection with NY 22 north of Granville, NY. It runs through Rensselaer and 

Washington Counties, NY roughly parallel to US 4 until its intersection with NY 22.

NY 32

NY 32 is a two-lane north-south roadway running between Albany and Hudson 

Falls, NY in the project study area. It runs through Albany and Washington Counties 

often overlapping with US 4 and intersecting with US 9 in Glens Falls before turning 

east to Hudson Falls.

NY 29

NY 29 is an east-west roadway, entering the project study area in the west via Saratoga 

Springs, and terminating in the east at an intersection with NY 22 just outside of Salem, 

NY. NY 29 is two lanes for most of its length in the project study area.

NY 22

NY 22 runs north-south from New York City, NY to the Canadian border and is 

mostly a rural two-lane roadway. Within the project study area, NY 22 runs through 

Rensselaer and Washington Counties, overlapping with US 4 south of Whitehall.

VT 30

VT 30 is a north-south roadway originating in Burlington, VT and traveling north to 

Middlebury, VT. Within the project study area, VT 30 travels from Manchester, VT to 

US 4 west of Rutland, VT, connecting Bennington and Rutland Counties. It intersects 

US 7 in Manchester, VT.

Traffic volumes (average annual daily trips) on each major roadway in the project 

study area are summarized in Table 4-2. All roadways are shown in Figure 4-1.

4.3.2.2 Intercity Passenger Rail Services

Intercity passenger rail service in the project study area is provided by Amtrak. 

There are currently three Amtrak regional routes providing intercity passenger 

service in the project study area:

 Empire Service – Providing daily service between New York City, NY and 

Buffalo, NY with continuing service to Niagara Falls, NY and Toronto, Canada 

with stops in Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, NY in the project study area.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-6 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-2 Traffic Volumes on Major Project Study Area Roadways

Route From To AADT1

I-87 Albany NY 146 109,814

NY 146 Saratoga Springs 73,441

Saratoga Springs Glens Falls 45,765

US 9 Albany NY 146 19,681

NY 146 NY 108 12,055

NY 108 NY 50 17,729

NY 50 I-87 8,818

I-87 Glens Falls 16,741

US 7 Bennington Manchester 8,467

Manchester VT 103 4,933

VT 103 Rutland 17,229

US 4 Rensselaer NY 74 19,265

NY 74 NY 142 12,460

NY 142 NY 46 6,335

NY 46 NY 41 13,157

NY 41 VT 30 7,712

VT 30 Rutland 11,875

NY 40 Troy NY 126 12,527

NY 126 NY 67 9,000

NY 67 Argyle/NY 197 4,732

Argyle/NY 197 US 4 2,674

NY 32 Albany US 4 9,929

US 4 Stillwater 7,550

Stillwater NY 50 2,709

NY 50 Glens Falls 4,782

Glens Falls NY 42 13,124

NY 196 NY 42 NY 40 3,747

NY 29 Saratoga Springs NY 67 11,997

NY 67 NY 372 8,915

NY 372 NY 22 1,970

NY 22 Hoosick Falls NY 313 5,734

NY 313 US 4 3,336

VT 30 Manchester Pawlet 3,200

Pawlet VT 140 1,604

VT 140 US 4 5,050

Source: NYSDOT Online Traffic Data Viewer, 2008, http://gis.dot.ny.gov/tdv/

VTrans 2008 (Route Log) AADTs State Highways, May 2009

State of Vermont 2008 Traffic Flow Map (AADT), VTrans, September 2010, 

http://www.aot.state.vt.us/Planning/Documents/TrafResearch/Publications/pub.htm

1 AADT = Average Annual Daily Trips

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-7 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Adirondack Service – Providing daily service between New York City, NY and 

Montreal, CA via Albany with stops in Schenectady, Saratoga Springs, Fort 

Edward-Glens Falls and Whitehall, NY in the project study area.

 Ethan Allen Express – Providing daily service between New York City, NY and 

Rutland, VT via Albany, NY with stops in Schenectady, Saratoga Springs, Fort 

Edward-Glens Falls, NY and Castleton, VT in the project study area.

Service on the Empire Corridor consists of 12 weekday roundtrips between Albany 

and New York City, NY. Four of these roundtrips extend to Buffalo, NY with one 

roundtrip extending to Toronto, Canada. Saturday service consists of eight 

roundtrips between Albany and New York City with three extending beyond to 

Buffalo and one to Toronto. Sunday service consists of nine roundtrips between 

Albany and New York City with three extending beyond to Buffalo and one to 

Toronto. Both the Adirondack service and the Ethan Allen service offer one 

passenger trip per day in each direction. Table 4-3 shows the annual ridership on 

these service lines.

Table 4-3 Amtrak Annual Passenger Trips 

Service Line FY2009 FY2010

Empire1 925,746 981,241

Ethan Allen 46,748 48,031

Adirondack 104,681 118,673

Source: Provided by Amtrak

1 Empire Service between New York City and Albany (not including the portion between Albany and Toronto)

4.3.2.3 Regional Bus Services

There are a few private companies that currently provide intercity bus services, 

connecting towns and counties in the project study area at a regional level. These 

services include:

 Greyhound provides several trips daily between New York City, NY and 

Montreal, Canada, with stops in Albany, Saratoga Springs, and Glens Falls, NY.

 Yankee Trails operates a regional bus line from Bennington, VT to Albany, NY, 

offering two trips per day.

 Adirondack Trailways provides regional connection from New York City, NY

throughout New York State and into Canada, including Toronto and Montreal. 

Within the project study area, it has stops in Albany, Schenectady, Saratoga 

Springs and Glens Falls, NY. Adirondack Trailways has a stop at Albany 

International Airport, NY.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-8 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.3.2.4 Local Bus Services

There are several local transportation agencies or companies that provide bus 

services for communities in the project study area. These buses provide connections 

within a town or among adjacent towns in the project study area, but their 

fixed-route services do not extend to connect one county to another. Some of these 

buses also serve as feeder buses that pick up and deliver passengers to existing rail 

stations in the project study area. Key local transportation organizations that serve 

the communities in the project study area include:

 The Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) – provides bus services 

in Albany, Schenectady, Troy and Saratoga Counties in NY, and serves the 

current rail stations at Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady, NY. 

CDTA also offers frequently scheduled ShuttleFly service to Albany 

International Airport.

 Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) – provides bus services in Warren, 

Washington, and Saratoga Counties in New York State. GGFT also provides local 

feeder bus service to the existing Amtrak Station in Fort Edward-Glens Falls 

Monday through Saturday.

 Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD, also known as “The Bus”) –

provides bus services in Rutland County and surrounding areas in Vermont. 

MVRTD also operates a commuter bus service between Rutland and Manchester, 

VT, making connections with the Green Line Mountain Express for commuters 

traveling between Bennington and Rutland.

 The Green Mountain Community Network, Inc. (GMX) – provides bus services 

in Bennington County and surrounding areas in Vermont.

4.3.2.5 Air Services

Aviation also plays an important role in the region’s transportation system and there are 

two commercial airports in the project study area. The busiest and largest airport in the 

project study area is Albany International Airport in Albany, NY. While it provides 

frequent flights to various destinations both domestically and internationally, it does not 

provide any direct connections within the project study area. CDTA and Adirondack 

Trailways serve the airport providing both local and regional bus connections to the 

airport. CDTA also provides a rail connection to the airport via its ShuttleFly service, 

which includes a stop at the Amtrak rail station in Albany/Rensselaer, NY. A taxi stand 

is also located just outside the baggage claim area.

Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport (formerly known as “Rutland State 

Airport”) is a state-owned public-use airport located near Rutland, VT. Three flights 

between Rutland, VT and Boston, MA are provided daily; however there are no 

flights proving connections within the project study area. There are no public 

transportation services available to and from this airport.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-9 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Other public aviation facilities found in the project study area do not host significant 

commercial passenger boardings. Table 4-4 shows the annual passenger boardings at 

these two airports.

Table 4-4 Commercial Airports Annual Passenger Boardings 

Airport 2008 2009

Albany International Airport 1,365,854 1,302,814

Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport 5,038 4,458

Source: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

4.3.2.6 Freight Rail Services

Freight rail service is currently operated over all of the project study area rail lines.

Three different railroads (CSX, Canadian Pacific Railway, and Vermont Rail Systems)

operate over lines they either own or lease (or have operating rights for).

CSX Hudson Subdivision

CSX operates freight service on the section of track between Rensselaer and 

Schenectady, NY, which is part of the Hudson Subdivision that they own. This section 

of track (Segment 1; see Figure 3-1) is approximately 18 miles long. This line is distinct 

from the CSX Selkirk Subdivision which runs south of Albany and Schenectady

serving a major rail yard and automotive distribution center in Selkirk. It also serves a 

bulk transloading facility in Albany. Amtrak has operating rights over this section.

The line connects to the CSX Selkirk Subdivision at the west end at CP-169, providing 

access towards Buffalo. In Albany, it connects to Amtrak’s Post Road Subdivision at 

CP-142, which provides access towards Massachusetts. The Hudson Subdivision 

connects with Canadian Pacific Railway’s Colonie Subdivision (described below) in 

downtown Albany at CP-145; however, the only direct moves provided for are 

moves between the south and the west. Trains coming from the Albany-Rensselaer 

station are not able to make direct moves onto the CP Colonie Subdivision heading 

north. The Hudson Subdivision connects to the CP Freight Subdivision in downtown 

Schenectady at CP-160, with movements allowed between the south and the west, 

and between the north and the east.

The Hudson Subdivision is mostly single track, with short double track segments in 

Rensselaer, Albany, and Schenectady, NY. There are also several long freight sidings. 

The line is maintained for passenger speeds of up to 110 mph and freight speeds of 

50 mph. Geometric restrictions in the urban areas result in several speed restrictions. 

In Rensselaer, around the Albany/Rensselaer station, the passenger train authorized 

speeds are reduced to 15 mph and freight train speeds down to 10 mph. Through 

Albany both the passenger and freight authorized speeds are 20 to 25 mph. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-10 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Approaching Schenectady Station, passenger train authorized speeds are reduced to 

55 mph from the east and 50 mph from the west, before dropping to 30 mph in the 

station area. The freight train authorized speed is reduced to 30 mph throughout 

Schenectady. The track is generally maintained to FRA Class 5 standards.

The line is signaled with automatic block wayside signals with cab signals under 

centralized traffic control (CTC). In the section of track between Rensselaer and 

Schenectady, there are three highway-rail grade crossings equipped with automatic 

warning devices at Lincoln Avenue, Morris Road, and Cordell’s Road.

The segment is primarily single track, with short double-track segments in Albany, 

Rensselaer, and Schenectady, and a 3.3-mile long passing siding. The line is currently 

maintained to FRA Class 5 standards and is signaled with automatic block wayside 

signals with cab signals under CTC.

Existing train operations on Segment 1 include more than six daily freight round 

trips, as well as eight daily round trip passenger trains associated with the 

Adirondack, Empire, Ethan Allen, Lake Shore Limited, and Maple Leaf services 

operated by Amtrak. Other transportation options include local bus service provided 

by the CDTA and regional connecting service provided by Adirondack Trailways; 

major roadway connections via I-90, I-87 and I-890; and access to domestic and 

international flights at Albany International Airport.

Canadian Pacific Railway

Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) operates freight services over three subdivisions they 

own in the project study area.

Colonie Subdivision

CP operates freight service on the Colonie Subdivision, the section of track between 

Albany and Mechanicville, NY along the west side of the Hudson River. This 

subdivision is approximately 19 miles long. The line serves a major yard at 

Kenwood, an intermodal facility at the Port of Albany, and a bulk transloading 

facility in Albany. Norfolk Southern has operating rights over this section.

The Colonie Subdivision would not be used by the Proposed Action Alternative; this 

route was dismissed from consideration as described in Chapter 3.

Freight Subdivision

CP operates freight service on the Freight Subdivision, the section of track between 

Mechanicville and Schenectady, NY (Segment 6; see Figure 3-1). This section of track 

is approximately 17 miles long. The line serves a yard at Schenectady. Pan Am 

Railways and Norfolk Southern have operating rights over this section.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-11 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

In Mechanicville, the Freight Subdivision connects at CPF-467 with the CP Colonie 

Subdivision (described above) to the south and Pan Am Railway’s (PAR’s) Freight 

Main Line to the east. From Mechanicville, the Freight Subdivision runs west to 

CPF-478 and CPF-480, where it connects to CP’s Canadian Connector Subdivision and 

Canadian Subdivision (described below) to the north. Direct connections are provided 

for all moves, with the Canadian Connector Subdivision being a short track that is 

functionally one leg of the wye.10 In addition, a separate spur track controlled by PAR, 

the Rotterdam Branch, continues west to the CSX Selkirk Subdivision at Rotterdam 

Junction. From Glenville, the branch continues southwest through Schenectady, where 

it connects to CSX’s Hudson Subdivision (described above) at CPF-485. Connections 

exist to allow moves between the south and the west, and between the north and the 

east. The line continues all the way to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

The Freight Subdivision is mostly single track, with one controlled siding in 

Crescent. The track is maintained for passenger and freight speeds of 40 to 50 mph. 

In Mechanicville and Schenectady, geometric restrictions limit the authorized speeds 

to 25 mph. The line is signaled with automatic block wayside signals under CTC.

Segment 2 runs 4.6 miles from Schenectady, NY to CPF-480 along the Freight 

Subdivision. The segment is single track and is currently maintained to FRA Class 3 

standards. The line is signaled with automatic block wayside signals under CTC. There 

are three at-grade railroad crossings within this segment; all of them are public crossings.

Existing train operations on Segment 2 include more than nine daily freight round 

trips, as well as two daily round trip passenger trains associated with the Ethan Allen 

and Adirondack services. Other transportation options include local bus service 

provided by the CDTA and regional connecting service provided by Adirondack 

Trailways; major roadway connections via NY 50 and NY 146; and access to domestic 

and international flights at Albany International Airport.

Existing train operations in Segment 6 include three to four freight round trips per 

day. There is no existing passenger rail service. Transportation options include local 

bus service operated by the City of Mechanicville, local bus service provided by 

CDTA, and major roadway connections via NY 67, US 9 and I-87.

This segment is single track with one 1.8-mile long controlled siding west of Elnora, 

NY. The line is currently maintained to FRA Class 3 standards and is signaled with 

automatic block wayside signals under CTC. There are eight grade crossings within 

this segment, consisting of six public and two private or farm crossings.

10 A triangular shaped arrangement of rail tracks with a switch or set of points at each corner. When used at a rail 

junction, it allows trains to pass from any line to any other line.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-12 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Canadian Subdivision

CP operates freight service on the Canadian Subdivision, the section of track between 

Glenville and Whitehall, NY (Segment 3; see Figure 3-1). This section is approximately 

56 miles long. The Canadian Subdivision serves yards at Saratoga Springs, Fort Edward, 

and Whitehall. The yard in Whitehall is dispatched by Vermont Rail Systems although 

the only access is from the Canadian Subdivision. Amtrak has operating rights over this 

section.

Pan Am Railway Freight Main Line

Pan Am Railways (PAR) operates freight service on the PAR Freight Main Line, 

which they own and which runs from Mechanicville, NY to Mattawamkeag, Maine. 

The section covered by this study, between Mechanicville and Hoosick Junction, is 

22 miles long (Segment 7; see Figure 3-1). There are no major yards or facilities in this 

section, though there are several freight sidings. CP and Norfolk Southern have 

operating rights over this section.

At the west end, the line connects to CP’s Freight Subdivision (described above) at 

CPF-467 in Mechanicville, where a direct move is only provided between the PAR 

Freight Main Line and the Freight Subdivision line to the west. With the existing 

geometry, trains coming from Albany would not be able to make a direct move onto 

the PAR Freight Main Line towards Vermont and Massachusetts. The line connects 

with the Batten Kill Railroad (a freight short line) at CPF-448 in Eagle Bridge. It 

connects with Vermont Railway’s B&R Subdivision (described below) at CPF-445 in 

Hoosick Junction, with connections provided for all movements.

The line is mostly single track, with small double track segments over the Hudson 

River and between Eagle Bridge and Hoosick Junction. The line is maintained for 

freight speeds of 30 to 40 mph. Geometric restrictions in the vicinity of Mechanicville 

result in speed restrictions of 10 mph. The line is signaled with automatic block 

wayside signals under CTC.

Segment 7 runs 22.4 miles from Mechanicville to Hoosick Junction, NY along 

PAR’s Freight Main Line. This segment is principally single track, with 4.5 miles of 

double track over the Hudson River and between Eagle Bridge and Hoosick 

Junctions. The line is currently maintained to FRA Class 3 standards and is signaled 

with automatic block wayside signals under CTC. There are 17 grade crossings 

within this segment, consisting of ten public and seven private or farm crossings.

Existing train operations on Segment 7 include eight to ten freight round trips per 

day. There is no existing passenger rail service. Transportation options include local 

bus service operated by the City of Mechanicville, and major roadway connections 

via NY 67, US 4 and I-87.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-13 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Vermont Railway Bennington & Rutland (B&R) Subdivision

Vermont Railway (VTR), a subsidiary of Vermont Rail Systems (VRS), operates 

freight service on the B&R Subdivision, which runs from Hoosick Junction, NY to 

Rutland, VT (Segments 8, 9 and 10; see Figure 3-1). The line is owned by the State of 

Vermont. The line is approximately 59 miles long and currently serves yards in 

North Bennington and Rutland.

At the south end the line connects to PAR’s Freight Main Line (described above) at 

CPF-445 in Hoosick Junction, with connections provided for all direct moves. In North 

Bennington, there is an inactive spur to Bennington. Direct connections to the spur are 

only available from the south, so trains moving between Rutland and Bennington do 

not have a direct move. It does appear that this connection existed in the past and 

could be restored. In Rutland, the line connects to another VRS subsidiary, the Green 

Mountain Railroad (GMRR), a freight short line that runs east towards the Connecticut 

River. Direct connections are provided only for moves between the north and the east. 

Just beyond the GMRR connection, the line connects with another VRS subsidiary, the 

Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad (described below).

The line is mostly single track, with freight sidings in Arlington, Manchester, Danby, 

and South Wallingford, VT in addition to the previously mentioned yards. The line is 

maintained for freight speeds of 10 to 30 mph. The line is not signaled and is 

operated as dark territory.

Segment 8 runs 7 miles from Hoosick Junction, NY to North Bennington, VT along 

the B&R Subdivision. This segment is single track with no passing sidings and is 

currently maintained to FRA Class 2 standards. The line is not signaled and currently 

operates as dark territory. There are 11 grade crossings, consisting of six public and 

five private or farm crossings.

Existing train operations on Segment 8 include two to three freight round trips per 

week operated by VRS. There is no existing passenger rail service. Transportation 

options include local bus service provided by the GMX Brown Line, serving North 

Bennington and Bennington, VT, and major roadway connections via US 7, VT 7A 

and NY/VT 67.

Segment 9 runs 21 miles from North Bennington to Manchester, VT along the B&R 

Subdivision. This segment is primarily single track, with 0.4 miles of freight sidings in 

North Bennington and Arlington. The line is currently maintained to FRA Class 2 

standards: it is not signaled and it operates as dark territory. There are 37 grade 

crossings within this segment, consisting of 16 public and 21 private or farm crossings.

Existing train operations on Segment 9 include two to three freight round trips per 

week operated by VRS. There is no existing passenger rail service. Transportation 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-14 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

options include local bus service provided by the GMX Regional Route serving 

Bennington and Manchester, VT, and a major roadway connection via VT 30.

Segment 10 runs 31 miles from Manchester to Rutland, VT along the B&R Subdivision. 

The segment is primarily single track, with 0.5 miles of freight sidings in Manchester, 

Danby, and South Wallingford. The line is currently maintained to FRA Class 2 

standards: it is not signaled and is operated as dark territory. There are 78 grade 

railroad crossings, consisting of 21 public crossing and 57 private or farm crossings.

Existing train operations on Segment 10 include two to three freight round trips per 

week operated by VRS. There is no existing passenger rail service. Other 

transportation options include bus service provided by the MVRTD (which provides 

local circulators in Rutland and service from Rutland to Manchester, VT); major 

roadway connections via US 7 and VT 30; and limited flight services at the RutlandSouthern Vermont Regional Airport.

Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad Main Line

Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad (CLP), a subsidiary of VRS, operates freight service 

on its line between Whitehall, NY and Rutland, VT (Segment 4; see Figure 3-1). The 

line is approximately 24 miles long. The CLP line currently serves a yard in 

Whitehall, which is dispatched by VRS, despite the need to use CP’s Canadian 

Subdivision Line to reach the yard. Amtrak has operating rights over this section.

4.3.3 Environmental Consequences

The proposed rail infrastructure improvements would accommodate the proposed 

additional round trip of passenger service and minimize freight delays throughout 

the project study area. These infrastructure improvements would not impact the 

existing transportation systems along any of the segments.

4.3.3.1 Impacts to Existing Railroad Infrastructure

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no effects on transportation.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would require that the existing railroad infrastructure be 

improved, where needed, to accommodate one round trip per day of passenger 

service. Improvement requirements and impacts to the transportation system for 

each segment are described below.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-15 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 1

The existing infrastructure in Segment 1 is in acceptable condition to accommodate 

the proposed passenger service. No infrastructure improvements are proposed on 

this segment. No modifications are proposed at Albany/Rensselaer Station to 

accommodate the proposed service, since it is anticipated that the current building 

and parking structure can accommodate the forecasted increase in ridership. Since 

there would be no infrastructure improvements there would not be any impact to the 

existing transportation systems along Segment 1.

Segment 2

Proposed improvements include adding 2 miles of siding (or double-track) for 

congestion relief; modifying the warning systems at all public grade crossings; and 

upgrading the signal system to an electronic in-track system with interlocking tie-in. 

Minimal modifications are proposed at Schenectady Station to bring the station up to 

Amtrak Class III standards. These infrastructure improvements would not impact 

the existing transportation systems along Segment 2.

Segment 3

The existing infrastructure in Segment 3 is in acceptable condition to accommodate 

the proposed passenger service. No infrastructure improvements are proposed on 

this segment. No modifications are proposed at Saratoga Springs, Fort Edward, or 

Whitehall Stations to accommodate the proposed service, since it is anticipated that 

the current buildings and parking structures can accommodate the forecasted 

increase in ridership. Since there would be no infrastructure improvements there 

would not be any impact to the existing transportation systems along Segment 3.

Segment 4

The existing infrastructure in Segment 4 is in acceptable condition to accommodate 

the proposed passenger service. No infrastructure improvements are proposed on 

this segment. No modifications are proposed at Castleton Station to accommodate 

the proposed service, since it is anticipated that the current building can 

accommodate the forecasted increase in ridership. Since there would be no 

infrastructure improvements there would not be any impact to the existing 

transportation systems along Segment 4.

Segment 6

Proposed improvements include adding a 3-mile long siding near Glenville, NY; 

upgrading 5 miles of main line track; and modifying the warning systems at all 

public grade crossings. These infrastructure improvements would not impact the 

existing transportation systems along Segment 6.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-16 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 7

Proposed improvements include adding a 2-mile long passing siding near the middle 

of the segment and modifying the warning systems at all public grade crossings. A 

new station is proposed in Mechanicville, NY; the station would include a 425-foot 

long platform and 50 parking spaces, and meet Amtrak Class V standards. These 

infrastructure improvements would not impact the existing transportation systems 

along Segment 7.

Segment 8

Proposed improvements include replacing ties; upgrading the line to FRA Class 3 

standards over the entire length by surfacing and curvature realignments; modifying 

the warning systems at all public grade crossings; upgrading the existing sidings; 

and replacing the bridges currently rated as being in “poor” condition. The proposed 

improvements do not include installation of a signal system due to the relatively low 

train frequency on this section. A new station is proposed in North Bennington, VT; 

the station would include a 425-foot long platform and 50 parking spaces, and meet 

Amtrak Class V standards. These infrastructure improvements would not impact the 

existing transportation systems along Segment 8.

Segment 9

Proposed improvements include replacing ties; upgrading the line to FRA Class 3 

standards over the entire length by surfacing and curvature realignments; modifying 

the warning systems at all public grade crossings; upgrading the existing sidings; 

and replacing the bridges currently rated as being in “poor” condition. The proposed 

improvements do not include installation of a signal system due to the relatively low 

train frequency on this section. A new station is proposed in Manchester, VT; the 

station would include a 425-foot long platform and 50 parking spaces, and meet 

Amtrak Class V standards. These infrastructure improvements would not impact the 

existing transportation systems along Segment 9.

Segment 10

Proposed improvements include replacing tie; upgrading the line to FRA Class 3 

standards over the entire length by surfacing and curvature realignments; modifying 

the warning systems at all public grade crossings; upgrading the existing sidings; 

and replacing the bridges currently rated as being in “poor” condition. The proposed 

improvements do not include installation of a signal system due to the relatively low 

train frequency on this section. Minimal modifications are proposed at Rutland 

Station so that the station meets Amtrak Class IV standards. These infrastructure 

improvements would not impact the existing transportation systems along 

Segment 10.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-17 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.3.3.2 Impacts to Local Intersections

A ridership model was prepared to evaluate the service alternatives. Table 4-5 shows

the preliminary ridership forecasts for re-routing the Ethan Allen service via 

Schenectady, NY. The ridership forecast estimated that there will be an annual increase 

of approximately 37,800 riders for the Proposed Action Alternative to stations within 

the project study area over the No-Build Alternative, or 104 riders per day.

Given the small forecasted increase in daily ridership throughout the project study 

area, it is anticipated that intersections adjacent to the stations within the project 

study area would experience relatively minor traffic impacts, if any. It is likely that 

any impacts that do arise could be largely mitigated by signal optimization and that 

capacity improvements would be unnecessary. The intersections adjacent to the 

stations within the project study area would experience relatively minor traffic 

impacts, which could be mitigated by signal optimization.

Implementing new passenger rail service would improve the transit options for choice 

riders and would improve regional mobility for transit-dependent riders by facilitating 

access to previously un-served areas in southwestern Vermont, and would connect these 

areas to the greater region via connections at Albany and Rensselaer, NY.

Table 4-5 Annual Ridership Forecasts1

Station

Forecasted Ridership

2010 Baseline

2030

No-Build2

Proposed Action Alternative3

2030

Change from 

No-Build

Montreal - Ft. Ticonderoga 5,200 5,700 5,700 0

Rutland 8,300 10,800 14,900 4,100

Castleton 1,100 1,800 1,900 100

Whitehall 900 1,000 1,000 0

Fort Edward/Glens Fall 4,300 4,600 4,500 -100

Saratoga Springs 15,100 16,600 16,500 -100

Schenectady 8,100 8,400 10,300 1,900

Manchester – – 4,400 4,400

N. Bennington – – 6,400 6,400

Mechanicville – – 4,600 4,600

Albany/Rensselaer 3,200 3,400 3,700 300

Hudson-NY Penn 32,400 35,900 52,100 16,200

Total 78,600 88,200 126,000 37,800

1 Preliminary unadjusted figures; one-way boardings.

2 Includes ongoing Ethan Allen service and Adirondack service

3 Includes relocated Ethan Allen service as well as ongoing Adirondack service

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-18 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.4 Air Quality

This section provides an overview of the existing conditions and potential impacts to air 

quality that may result from the No-Build Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.4.1 Methodology

The Project falls under FRA regulations subject to US Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) General Conformity Rule. The General Conformity Rule ensures that the actions 

taken by federal agencies in nonattainment and maintenance areas do not interfere with a 

state’s plans to meet national standards for air quality. 

The General Conformity Rule, established under the Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA), 

plays an important role in helping states improve air quality in those areas that do not meet 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Federal agencies must work with 

State, Tribal, and local governments in nonattainment or maintenance areas to ensure that 

federal actions conform to the air quality plans established in the State Implementation Plan.

Transit projects are an important transportation measure forimproving air quality because 

they reduce vehicle-miles-of-travel. The air quality evaluation includes a regional air 

quality analysis of air pollutants that calculated the reduction of automobile emission that 

would be eliminated and the increase in train engine emission due to the Project. This

regional or mesoscale analysis evaluated the change in ozone precursors (volatile organic 

compounds [VOCs], oxides of nitrogen [NOX]), carbon monoxide [CO], and particulate 

matter [PM]).

The purpose of the General Conformity Rule is to:

 Ensure that federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violations of the 

NAAQS; 

 Ensure that actions do not cause additional or worsen existing violations of the 

NAAQS; and 

 Ensure that attainment of the NAAQSs is not delayed.

The General Conformity Rule establishes standards for when a project must conduct more 

detailed analyses. These standards, called “De minimis” emissions levels, are thresholds that 

when a project has emissions below them demonstrate that the project satisfies the General 

Conformity Rule. The results of the mesoscale analysis were compared to the De Minimis criteria.

4.4.1.1 Air Quality Standards

The EPA has established the NAAQS for the primary air pollutants to protect the public 

health. The predominant sources of pollution anticipated from the proposed project 

include motor vehicle traffic and locomotives. The NAAQS are presented in Table 4-6.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-19 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Air pollution is of concern because of its demonstrated effects on human health. Of special 

concern are the respiratory effects of the pollutants and their potential toxic effects, as 

described below.

Carbon Monoxide 

Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas that is a product of incomplete 

combustion. CO is absorbed by the lungs and reacts with hemoglobin to reduce the oxygen 

carrying capacity of the blood. At low concentrations, CO has been shown to aggravate the 

symptoms of cardiovascular disease. It can cause headaches and nausea and, at sustained 

high concentration levels, can lead to coma and death.

Proposed projects that are located in CO non-attainment or maintenance attainment areas 

are required to evaluate their impact on CO concentrations and the NAAQS. A mesoscale 

analysis was conducted to evaluate the regional pollution trends at a planning level. A 

hotspot or microscale analysis was not conducted.

Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter is made up of small solid particles and liquid droplets. PM10 refers to 

particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less, and 

PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. 

Particulates can enter the body through the respiratory system. Particulates over 

10 micrometers in size are generally captured in the nose and throat and are readily 

expelled from the body. Particles smaller than 10 micrometers, and especially particles 

smaller than 2.5 micrometers, can reach the air ducts (bronchi) and the air sacs (alveoli) in 

the lungs. Particulates are associated with increased incidence of respiratory diseases, 

cardiopulmonary disease, and cancer. The counties and cities along the alternatives 

corridors are in attainment of PM standards. Similar to CO, a mesoscale analysis was 

conducted to evaluate the regional PM pollution trends at a planning level. A microscale 

analysis was not conducted.

Ozone 

Ozone is a strong oxidizer and an irritant that affects the lung tissues and respiratory 

functions. Exposure to ozone can impair the ability to perform physical exercise, can result 

in symptoms such as tightness in the chest, coughing, and wheezing, and can ultimately 

result in asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. On June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the 1-

hour ozone standard for most areas in the country.

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs are a general class of compounds containing hydrogen and carbon and are a 

precursor to the formation of the pollutant ozone. While concentrations of VOCs in the 

atmosphere are not generally measured, ground-level ozone is measured and used to 

assess potential health effects. Emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the 

presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere. Accordingly, ozone is 

regulated as a regional pollutant and is not assessed on a project-specific basis.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-20 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Nitrogen Oxides

When combustion temperatures are extremely high, as in automobile engines, atmospheric 

nitrogen gas may combine with oxygen gas to form various oxides of nitrogen. Of these, 

nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the most significant air pollutants. This 

group of pollutants is generally referred to as nitrogen oxides or NOX. Nitric oxide is 

relatively harmless to humans but quickly converts to NO2. Nitrogen dioxide has been 

found to be a lung irritant and can lead to respiratory illnesses. Nitrogen oxides, along with 

VOCs, are also precursors to ozone formation.

Table 4-6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Level Averaging Time Level Averaging

Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 8-hour1 None

35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1-hour1 None

Lead 1.5 μg/m3, 2 Quarterly Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb 3 Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary

100 ppb 1-hour4

Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 μg/m3 24-hour5 Same as Primary

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 μg/m3 Annual (Arithmetic Mean)6 Same as Primary

35 μg/m3 24-hour7 Same as Primary

Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour8 Same as Primary

0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour9 Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1-hour (applied to limited areas)10

Sulfur Dioxide 0.03 ppm Annual 0.5 ppm 3-hour1

0.14 ppm 24-hour1 0.5 ppm 3-hour

75 ppb11 1-hour None

1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

2 Final rule signed October 15, 2008.

3 The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard.

4 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb 

(effective January 22, 2010).

5 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

6 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 

15.0 μg/m3.

7 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 

35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006).

8 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over 

each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 27, 2008) 

9 (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area 

over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

(b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—would remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to 

address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.

(c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008).

10 (a) EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard ("anti-backsliding").

(b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is <1.

11 (a) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an 

area must not exceed 75 ppb

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-21 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.4.1.2 Mesoscale Analysis

The air quality evaluation included a mesoscale analysis that estimates the area-wide 

emissions of CO, PM, NOX, and VOC emissions. The mesoscale analysis evaluated 

the changes in emissions based upon changes in the average daily traffic volumes, 

roadway lengths, vehicle emission rates, and train engine emission rates. Using 

EPA-recommended air quality modeling techniques, total pollutant emissions were 

calculated for the difference between the No-Build and the Build Conditions in 2030. 

The mesoscale analysis calculated the 2030 mobile source emissions from the major 

roadways in the project study area; the analysis was conducted on the regional scale, 

not at the segment level.

Train Emissions 

Diesel train emissions were modeled using the most recent approved EPA train 

emission factors and the train network and volumes as discussed below. The NY-VT 

Bi-State Rail Project train emissions are calculated by using the EPA passenger/ 

commuter train emission factors and the total distance the trains would travel for the 

Proposed Action Alternative. Estimates of rail emissions are based upon the factors 

contained in the EPA Emission Factor for Locomotives Guidance document.11

The number of train miles is estimated from a breakdown of track mileage by train 

line and community. Train mileage is a function of the train frequency data using 

present, and proposed commuter rail schedules. Multiplying the train miles per day 

by the vehicular emissions per train mile yields the estimated vehicular emissions 

per day.

Motor Vehicles

Ridership and Roadway Data. The air quality mesoscale analysis used ridership and 

roadway data (ridership reductions, roadway types, and speeds) developed for each 

analysis condition. The mesoscale analysis emissions used a breakdown of typical 

daily peak and off-peak traffic volumes.

Emission Rates. The vehicle emission factors used in the mesoscale and microscale 

analysis were based on the EPA's MOBILE 6.212 Vehicle Emission Modeling 

Software. MOBILE 6.2 calculates emission factors from motor vehicles in grams per 

vehicle mile for the future 2030 conditions. Specifically, the mobile emission factors 

were based on NYSDOT MOBILE 6 Emissions Factors13. The vehicle distributions of 

rural principal arterial and rural minor arterial roadways were utilized which best 

represent the project study area roadways where the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

11 Emission Factors for Locomotives, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA420-F-09-025, April 2009.

13 MOBILE6.2 (Mobile Source Emission Factor Model), The May 2004 release from USEPA, Office of Mobile Sources, 

Ann Arbor, MI.

13 NYSDOT ESB April 2008 MOBILE Emission Factors for Regional, Mesoscale and CMAQ Project Emission 

Calculations for Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady Counties for Year 2030.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-22 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

will be reduced. Although EPA is currently recommending use of a new model 

(MOVES), state data required for that model were not available at the time of the 

analysis.

Traffic Data. The air quality evaluation uses traffic data (volumes and speeds) 

developed for each alternative based upon ridership and VMT estimates. The 

mesoscale analysis uses typical daily peak and off peak traffic volumes for the ozone 

season (summer). Vehicle speeds are developed based upon traffic volumes and 

typical speeds for the project study area roadways. Based on the ridership and VMT 

estimates, the average percent of VMT reduction in Vermont versus New York is 

only 3 percent. Therefore, the New York factors were utilized.

4.4.2 Existing Conditions

The attainment status of each area traversed by the proposed project is provided in 

Table 4-7 and summarized below:

 All counties in Vermont and Washington County in New York are in attainment 

for ozone;

 All other counties in New York are nonattainment for ozone;

 All counties in New York and Vermont are in attainment for CO;

 All counties New York and Vermont are in attainment for PM2.5; and

 All counties New York and Vermont are in attainment for PM10.

Table 4-7 NAAQS Attainment Status of Counties in the Project Study Area1

Segment2 County State

Attainment Status

Ozone CO PM2.5 PM10

1 Albany NY Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

1, 2 Schenectady NY Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

2, 6 Saratoga NY Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

3, 4 Washington NY Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

4, 10 Rutland VT Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

8, 9, 10 Bennington VT Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

7, 8 Rensselaer NY Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

1 Sources: EPA, The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html

2 See Figure 3-1.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-23 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.4.3 Environmental Consequences

The air quality evaluation included a mesoscale analysis that estimates the area wide 

emissions of VOCs, NOX, PM, and CO emissions from vehicles and train engines. Using 

EPA recommended air quality modeling techniques, total pollutant emissions were 

calculated for the difference between No-Build and the Proposed Action Alternative. 

4.4.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative VOC and NOX emissions are typically lower than the 

Existing Conditions emissions due to the implementation of state and federal emission 

control programs, such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program.

4.4.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Table 4-8 presents the projected emission reduction related to the Project through the 

mesoscale analysis results for the Proposed Action Alternative, based on modeled 

concentrations of VOC, NOX, PM, and CO emissions in 2030.

Table 4-8 Mesoscale Mobile Source Analysis Results: 

Emissions Reduction 

Alternative

Pollutant

PM2.52 PM102 VOCs3 NOX3 CO2

Proposed Action (Kg/day) -29.7 -674.2 -449.2 -455.7 -28,469.5

Proposed Action (Tons/yr) -11.9 -269.7 -180.6 -183.2 -11,444.7

De Minimis Criteria (Tons/yr)1 100 100 50 100 100

1- 40 CFR 93 § 153-- General Conformity Rule: De Minimis Criteria

2- De Minimis level shown for Maintenance Level (For Areas in Attainment)

3- De Minimis level Moderate Nonattainment –Albany, NY (inside an Ozone Transport Region)

The air quality evaluation demonstrated that the emission reductions from 

Project-related VMT outweighed the emission increases related to the additional 

train use. The Proposed Action Alternative therefore, results in a reduction in VOC, 

NOX, PM, and CO emissions, as compared to the No-Build condition. Because the 

Project results in a reduction of all pollutants, it meets the General Conformity 

De Minimis criteria.

4.4.3.3 Conformity

The air quality evaluation demonstrates that this FRA Project complies with the General 

Conformity Rule, which ensures that the actions taken by federal agencies in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas do not interfere with a state’s plans to meet 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-24 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

national standards for air quality. Although FRA is not subject to Transportation

Conformity requirements, the NY-VT Bi-State Rail Project is a transit project, this section 

discusses the status on the NY-VT Bi-State Rail Project in their planning processes. 

The New York Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a list of all 

projects, or project phases, in New York State proposed for Federal funding under 

Title 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 that are scheduled to begin in the four 

federal fiscal years 2011 through 2014 (between October 1, 2010 and 

September 30, 2014). This time frame is mandated by regulations promulgated under 

federal law in Title 23 U.S.C. Section 135. The most recent STIP for New York State 

was formally approved on September 30, 2011. The NYSDOT has included the 

NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study in the 2010 to 2014 STIP (Agency PIN 

Number: S03754171).

The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) is the designated MPO for 

the Capital District Transportation Management Area (TMA), which includes the 

metropolitan area of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady counties, with 

the exception of the Glens Falls urban area that extends into northern Saratoga 

County. As the MPO, CDTC, in cooperation with the NYSDOT and the Capital 

District Transportation Authority (CDTA), is responsible for carrying out the 

continuing, comprehensive, coordinated transportation planning process for the 

Capital District region. Part of the planning responsibility is the maintenance of a 

long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). CDTC's most recent RTP is called 

New Visions. CDTC is also responsible for maintaining short-range TIPs for the 

metropolitan area's major highway and transit facilities. Federal regulations require 

that transit, highway and other transportation improvement projects within the 

Capital District metropolitan area be included in this TIP if these projects are to be 

eligible for federal capital or operating funding from Titles I, III and IV fund sources.

CDTC has included the NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study in the 2010 to 

2015 TIP (Project Number RG121). As discussed above, the NYSDOT has also 

included the project in the 2010 to 2014 STIP. Consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, which requires that states with non-attainment areas evaluate the air 

quality impacts of transportation and transit projects during the planning process, 

this project has adhered to these requirements. 

4.5 Noise

Introducing new or additional passenger rail service and/or infrastructure 

improvements has the potential to increase noise along the selected route. This 

section describes the existing noise environment and the potential impacts from 

adding passenger rail service to each segment.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-25 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.5.1 Methodology

The noise impact assessment is based on the methodology defined in the FRA’s High‐

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (October 2005) and 

in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Report 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006).

Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, while sound is 

characterized by small air pressure fluctuations above and below the atmospheric 

pressure. The basic parameters of environmental noise that affect human subjective 

response are intensity or level, frequency content, and variation with time:

 Sound level is determined by how greatly the sound pressure fluctuates above 

and below the atmospheric pressure, and is expressed on a compressed scale in 

units of decibels. By using this scale, the range of normally encountered sound 

can be expressed by values between 0 and 120 decibels (dB).

 The frequency content of noise is related to the tone or pitch of the sound, and is 

expressed based on the rate of the air pressure fluctuation in terms of cycles per 

second (Hertz; Hz). The sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the 

A-weighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to 

provide a single number descriptor that correlates with human subjective 

response. Sound levels measured using this weighting system are called 

“A-weighted” sound levels, and are expressed in decibel notation as “dBA.”

 Human annoyance from noise depends on the cumulative noise exposure. Noise 

metrics used to assess potential impact include the day-night sound level (Ldn) 

and the hourly energy-average sound level (Leq). Both metrics are cumulative 

measures of noise exposure which take into account how loud noise events are, 

how long the events last, and how many occur. Leq takes into account how many 

events occur during a one-hour period. Ldn takes into account how many events 

occur over a 24-hour period during daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 

nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) periods, with a 10-decibel penalty added for 

events that occur during the nighttime. Many surveys have shown that high Ldn 

is well correlated with human annoyance, and therefore this descriptor is widely 

used for environmental noise impact assessment.

Potential noise impact has been assessed by modeling existing and future conditions 

based on available data for current passenger and freight train operations, the 

proposed new passenger rail service, and improvements to the infrastructure which 

may affect future noise levels. Since noise impact is assessed based on a cumulative 

noise metric that takes into account the number of train events, increasing the 

number of trains even by one may increase future noise conditions. Infrastructure 

improvements that may affect noise levels include:

 Improving the track to allow higher train speeds;

 Relocating new track closer to sensitive receptors;

 Replacing jointed track with continuous-welded rail (CWR);

 Introducing new special track work (i.e., crossovers or turnouts) such as at track 

sidings; and

 Introducing new stations.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-26 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Higher train speeds generally cause higher noise levels. For passenger coaches and rail 

cars this is primarily due to the increase in wheel/rail rolling noise at higher train 

speeds. For some locomotive operating conditions (i.e., high throttle settings for dieselpowered trains), higher train speeds can result in lower cumulative noise levels. Under 

these conditions locomotives generate the same maximum noise level regardless of 

speed since the dominant noise source is the diesel prime mover engine. At higher 

speeds the locomotive will actually pass by sensitive receptors faster and the amount of 

time sensitive receptors are exposed to the noise will decrease.

Relocating tracks within an existing railroad ROW by a typical track separation 

(15 feet) would typically increase future noise levels substantially only if sensitive 

receptors are already relatively close (within 50 feet) to the existing tracks. For 

receptors that are farther away from the existing tracks, relocating the tracks has a less 

significant effect. If tracks are moved significantly closer, future noise conditions may 

substantially increase for some receptors and there is a potential for impact.

Noise levels from the trains depend on the track conditions. Trains generate more 

noise when operating on jointed track or over special track work because there are 

gaps in the rail running surface which the wheels encounter. The noise assessment 

methodology assumes that replacing any existing jointed track with CWR would 

help to reduce future noise conditions.

Introducing new track sidings may increase future noise conditions due to three 

factors:

 Tracks would potentially be relocated closer to receptors,

 Special track work would be introduced at one or both ends of the sidings, and

 There is the potential for locomotives to idle on the sidings while waiting for 

other trains to pass on the main line tracks.

In this analysis, only the potential increase in noise from the introduction of special 

track work for new track sidings has been considered. As more detailed information 

becomes available about the location of new track sidings and the number and 

duration of locomotives idling, a more detailed analysis should be conducted.

Introducing new stations would change future noise conditions and may cause potential 

noise impact. While passenger train speeds are reduced compared to main line speeds as 

the train approaches and departs the stations, the locomotives will typically idle at the 

station for approximately 3.5 minutes while passengers get on and off the train. Stations 

may also introduce new noise sources such as public announcement notifications and 

increased automobile traffic for parking facilities. These new noise sources are typically 

less significant than changes to the train operations.

Near existing at-grade crossings, noise levels are typically substantially higher than 

main line sections due to the train sounding its horn. This analysis does not consider 

closing any of the existing at-grade crossings. Since the project would increase the 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-27 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

total number of train operations, future cumulative noise levels would increase near 

the at-grade crossings. As described in the next section, when existing noise levels 

are higher the FRA allows less increase in future noise. Therefore, there is a greater 

potential for noise impact near at-grade crossings than there is for main line sections. 

FRA regulates the use of locomotive horns so that they are not sounded before the 

train is 1/4-mile from an at-grade crossing and that they are sounded for 15 to 

20 seconds. At low speeds (i.e., 20 mph), the train would not typically begin 

sounding its horn until it is approximately 1/8-mile from the crossing. Therefore, if 

train speeds are increased through at-grade crossings, the train may begin sounding 

its horn closer to the 1/4-mile location and future noise conditions in these areas 

could substantially increase.

Per FTA and FRA guidance, the future noise levels evaluated in this EA do not take 

into account potential changes in future freight train volumes, as such would not be 

due to the increased passenger rail service of the project.

Distances to potential noise impact (measured from the near track centerline) have been 

computed. These distances assume that existing and future noise conditions are 

dominated by train activity. At locations where other noise sources significantly 

contribute to existing levels, such as near major roads and urban areas, the potential for 

impact would be less. Based on the description of different operating conditions above 

and their effect on future noise conditions, the following conditions have been analyzed:

 Main lines where existing and future tracks are CWR;

 Main lines where existing track is jointed and would be upgraded to CWR;

 Receptors within 1/4-mile from at-grade crossings;

 Receptors within 1/8-mile from at-grade crossings;

 New passenger train station locations where existing track is jointed;

 New passenger train station locations where existing track is CWR;

 New special track work locations where existing track is jointed; and

 New special track work locations where existing track is CWR.

The FRA and FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well-documented research on 

community reaction to noise and are based on a comparison of existing and future 

noise levels. According to the FRA and FTA, noise-sensitive land uses are 

categorized as follows:

 Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended 

purpose.

 Category 2: Places where people normally sleep. This includes residences, 

hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost 

importance.

 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, churches and parks with passive use.

Noise impact is assessed at receptors with nighttime sensitivity (Category 2) according to 

the Ldn. For other noise sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and 

institutional buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the hourly equivalent sound level (Leq) 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-28 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

during the peak transit service while the facility is in operation is used to assess impact. 

There are two levels of noise impact included in the criteria:

 Severe Impact: project-generated noise in the severe impact range can be 

expected to cause a significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the 

new noise. Severe impacts represent the most compelling need for mitigation.

Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there 

are truly extenuating circumstances that prevent it.

 Moderate Impact: In this range of noise impact, the change in the cumulative 

noise level is noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, 

adverse reactions from the community. In this transitional area, other projectspecific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact 

and the need for mitigation. These factors include the existing noise level, the 

predicted level of increase over existing noise levels, the types and numbers of 

noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise sensitivity of the properties, the 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures, community views and the cost of 

mitigating noise to more acceptable levels.

Figure 4-2 expresses the criteria in terms of the increase in total or cumulative noise 

that can occur in the overall noise environment before impact occurs. With higher 

existing noise levels, smaller increases in total future noise exposure are allowed.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2006.

Figure 4-2 FRA Noise Impact Criteria

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-29 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.5.2 Existing Conditions

This section describes noise-sensitive land use and existing noise conditions for each 

of the segments.

Segment 1

There are residential and institutional land uses along Segment 1 in urban and 

suburban areas. The closest residential receptors are typically 80 to 500 feet from the 

tracks. Residential land use is scattered among commercial and industrial areas as 

the railroad enters Rotterdam, NY and becomes denser within the city. The railroad 

is adjacent to the New York State Thruway (I-90) as it nears Colonie, NY, where 

residential land use is generally more than 900 feet away. After crossing I-87 and 

entering Albany, NY, the corridor includes a mix of commercial and residential areas 

with the closest homes approximately 80 feet from the tracks. Outside areas of dense 

commercial and residential land use, the corridor extends through largely wooded 

and agricultural land use where the closest sensitive receptors are typically 1,000 feet 

or farther from the alignment.

Institutional receptors along Segment 1 include schools, theaters, and churches, such 

as the State University of New York – Schenectady campus, the State Bowtie Movie 

Cinemas, the Schenectady Light Opera Theater, the Proctor’s Theater of Schenectady, 

KIPP Tech Valley School, and Livingston Jr. High School.

Existing noise levels along Segment 1 are dominated by existing freight and 

passenger rail service. This is one of the busier freight routes in the project study area

with approximately six roundtrip freight operations per day. There are three at-grade 

crossings within this segment. Existing noise levels 100 feet from the railroad 

typically range from 75 Ldn/69 Leq where there is existing CWR to 80 Ldn/74 Leq 

near at-grade crossings.

Segment 2

Segment 2 passes through open space and commercial areas, and East Glenville, NY. 

The closest sensitive residential receptors are typically 120 to 300 feet from the tracks. 

Institutional receptors include schools and churches, such as the Success Recording 

Studios and Production and the Ellis Medicine School of Nursing.

Existing noise levels are dominated by freight and passenger rail service. This is one of 

the busier freight routes in the project study area, with approximately nine roundtrip 

freight operations per day. There are three at-grade crossings within this segment.

Existing noise levels 100 feet from the alignment typically range from 74 Ldn/68 Leq 

where there is existing CWR to 79 Ldn/73 Leq near at-grade crossings.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-30 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 3

Segment 3 passes through several cities and towns such as Ballston Lake, Ballston 

Spa, Saratoga Springs, Gansevoort, Fort Edward, and Fort Ann. The closest 

residential receptors are typically 20 to 200 feet from the tracks. Outside the more 

populated areas, the segment extends through largely wooded and agricultural land 

use where scattered homes are approximately 100 feet or farther away from the 

tracks. The segment includes institutional receptors such as schools, libraries and 

churches. Examples of these institutional land uses include the Maple Avenue 

Middle School and Saratoga Abundant Life Church.

Existing noise levels are dominated by freight and passenger rail service along this 

segment. This segment is one of the busier freight routes in the project study area 

with approximately six roundtrip freight operations per day. There are also 

approximately 50 at-grade crossings along this segment. Existing noise levels 100 feet 

from the alignment typically range from 71 Ldn/65 Leq where there is existing CWR 

to 77 Ldn/71 Leq near at-grade crossings.

Segment 4

Segment 4 passes through cities and towns such as Castleton, Hydeville, and Fair 

Haven. The closest sensitive residential receptors in this segment are typically 40 to 

200 feet from the tracks. Outside areas of denser sensitive land use, the segment 

passes through wooded and agricultural areas where residences are scattered and as 

close as 75 feet from the tracks. Category 2 land use in this segment includes single 

family residences, multi-family residences and hotels. Category 3 land use includes 

institutional receptors such as schools, libraries, and churches. Examples of these 

institutional receptors include the Green Mountain Baptist Church in Rutland, VT, 

the Federated Church of Castleton and Whitehall Junior-Senior High School.

Existing noise levels are dominated by freight and passenger rail service along this 

segment, although freight operations are typically only two to three trains per week 

along this segment. There are approximately 40 at-grade crossings along this 

segment. Existing noise levels 100 feet from the alignment typically range from 

61 Ldn/55 Leq where there is existing CWR to 69 Ldn/63 Leq near at-grade 

crossings.

Segment 6

Segment 6 passes through the towns of Ushers and Elnora, NY. The corridor is 

almost entirely wooded and farmland. The closest sensitive residential receptors in 

this corridor are a few properties in Elnora approximately 80 feet from the tracks and 

a few properties in Mechanicville approximately 100 feet away. Outside of these 

areas, the closest sensitive land use is typically 150 to 200 feet away in suburban 

areas and 400 to 650 feet away in wooded areas. Institutional land use in this corridor 

includes Corpus Christi Church in Ushers.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-31 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Existing noise levels are dominated by freight service. There is no existing passenger 

rail service. There are eight at-grade crossings along this segment. Existing noise 

levels 100 feet from the alignment typically range from 68 Ldn/62 Leq where there is 

existing CWR to 73 Ldn/67 Leq near the at-grade crossings.

Segment 7

Segment 7 passes through Johnsonville, Schaghticoke, and Valley Falls, NY where 

there are single family residences, multi-family residences, and hotels such as the 

Eagle Bridge Inn. The closest sensitive residential receptors in this area are typically 

60 to 300 feet from the tracks, except in Mechanicville where some residences north 

of town are only 30 feet from the tracks. The corridor includes institutional receptors 

such as schools, libraries, daycares, and churches including Brenda Lynn’s Daycare, 

Mechanicville Art School, and several churches.

Existing noise levels in this segment are dominated by freight service. This is one of the 

busier freight routes in the project study area with nine roundtrip freight operations 

per day. There is no existing passenger rail service. There are 17 at-grade crossings. 

Existing noise levels 100 feet from the railroad typically range from 73 Ldn/67 Leq 

where there is existing CWR to 78 Ldn/72 Leq near the at-grade crossings.

Segment 8

Segment 8 passes through Walloomsac and North Hoosick, NY, continuing on to 

North Bennington, VT. The corridor includes single family and multi-family 

residences with the closest sensitive receptors typically 50 to 250 feet from the tracks. 

As the railroad continues to North Hoosick, the surrounding land is wooded and 

largely agricultural with few residential neighborhoods. Residential and institutional 

land uses within this corridor include School Number 16 in Walloomsac, Hathaway’s 

Drive-In Movie Theater in North Hoosick, and Southshire Community School in 

North Bennington.

Existing noise levels at receptors in close proximity to the railroad are dominated by 

freight service, although freight operations are typically only two to three per week 

along this segment. There is no existing passenger rail service. There are 11 at-grade 

crossings. Existing noise levels 100 feet from the tracks typically range from 

56 Ldn/49 Leq near existing CWR to 63 Ldn/57 Leq near the at-grade crossings.

Segment 9

Segment 9 passes through Arlington and Shaftsbury, VT. The corridor includes 

single family residences, multi-family residences, and hotels. The closest sensitive 

residential receptors are approximately 50 feet from the tracks near the cities and 

100 feet from the tracks where land use is less dense. Institutional land uses include 

several churches and schools such as the Martha Canfield Library and Happy Day’s 

Preschool in Arlington, and the Shaftsbury United Methodist Church.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-32 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Existing noise levels at receptors in close proximity to the railroad are dominated by 

freight service, although freight operations in this segment are typically only two to 

three per week. There is no existing passenger rail service. There are 37 at-grade 

crossings. Existing noise levels 100 feet from the railroad typically range from 

56 Ldn/49 Leq where there is existing CWR to 63 Ldn/57 Leq near the at-grade 

crossings.

Segment 10

Segment 10 passes though Wallingford, East Dorset, and Barnumville, VT. The closest 

sensitive residential receptors in this area are typically 50 to 200 feet from the tracks. 

Land use in Rutland Center is densely commercial and residential with the closest 

home approximately 50 feet away and scattered schools and churches 600 to 1,300 feet 

from the tracks. This corridor includes institutional receptors such as schools, libraries, 

and churches including Mill River Union High School in Rutland; Emerald Lake State 

Park near East Dorset, and the East Dorset Congregational Church.

Existing noise levels at receptors in close proximity to the railroad are dominated by 

freight service, although freight operations in this segment are typically only two to 

three per week. There is no existing passenger rail service. There are 78 at-grade 

crossings along this segment. Existing noise levels 100 feet from the railroad typically 

range from 56 Ldn/49 Leq where there is existing CWR to 63 Ldn/57 Leq near the atgrade crossings.

4.5.3 Environmental Consequences

This section describes potential noise impacts from the No-Build and Proposed 

Action Alternatives. General information on potential noise mitigation is provided, 

but specific mitigation has not been recommended. Distances to potential moderate 

and severe noise impact for each segment, each operating condition, and both 

Category 2 and Category 3 land uses are presented in Table 4-9.

4.5.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not increase noise at any location.

4.5.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Segment 1

Train speeds are not expected to increase in this segment. Depending on operating 

conditions, future noise levels would increase up to 3 dBA and may cause noise 

impacts (Table 4-9). For Category 2 land uses along main line sections, there would 

be no new noise impacts whether the existing tracks were jointed or CWR. Potential 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-33 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

moderate noise impacts would occur near at-grade crossings at distances up to 

139 feet from the near track due primarily to the increase in the number of trains. The 

greatest noise impacts would be associated with new special track work. There 

would potentially be moderate noise impacts up to 200 and 300 feet and severe noise 

impacts up to 46 and 200 feet from the near track where the existing tracks are jointed 

or CWR, respectively.

Segment 2

Freight and passenger train speeds are expected to increase from 50 mph to 55 mph.

Depending on operating conditions, future noise levels would increase up to 3 dBA 

and may cause noise impacts (Table 4-9). For Category 2 land uses along main line

sections, there would be no noise impacts if the existing tracks are jointed. Where 

existing tracks are CWR, there would be potential moderate noise impacts up to 

108 feet and severe noise impacts up to 23 feet from the near track. Near at-grade 

crossings there would be potential moderate noise impacts at distances up to 191 feet 

and severe noise impacts up to 41 feet. Where new special track work would be 

introduced, there would be potential moderate noise impacts up to 200 and 300 feet 

and severe noise impacts up to 55 and 200 feet from the alignment where the existing 

tracks are jointed or CWR, respectively.

Segment 3

Passenger train service and train speeds are not expected to increase in this segment. 

There would be no noise impact to sensitive receptors.

Segment 4

Passenger train service and train speeds are not expected to increase in this segment. 

There would be no noise impact to sensitive receptors.

Segment 6

One new roundtrip daily passenger train service would be introduced in Segment 6. 

Train speeds are expected to be 40 mph for passenger service and remain at 40 mph 

for freight service. Since there would be no increase in freight train speeds, noise 

levels would not increase as much as other segments and the potential for noise 

impact is less. The noise levels are expected to increase up to 2 dBA and may cause 

noise impacts (Table 4-9). For Category 2 land uses along main line sections, there 

would be no noise impacts whether the existing tracks were jointed or CWR. Near atgrade crossings there would be potential moderate noise impacts at distances up to 

139 feet and severe noise impacts up to 30 feet from the near track. Where new 

special track work would be introduced, there would be a potential for moderate 

noise impacts up to 59 feet if existing tracks are jointed. If existing tracks are CWR, 

there would potentially be moderate noise impacts up to 200 feet and severe noise 

impact up to 35 feet from the near track.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-34 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-9 Noise Impact Analysis Results

Operating Condition

Distance from Near Track to Potential Noise Impact (feet)

Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 2 Cat. 3

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6 Segment 7 Segment 8-10

Mainline - Existing Jointed Track -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 188 23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 100 -- -- --

Mainline - Existing CWR -- -- -- -- 108 23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 549 58 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 147 26 -- --

Within 1/8-mile of at-grade crossing 1 139 -- 24 -- 191 41 33 -- 138 29 24 -- 443 37 23 -- 278 49 39 -- 139 30 24 -- 139 29 24 -- 905 207 94 --

Between 1/4 and 1/8-mile of at-grade 

crossing 1 112 -- -- -- 171 36 29 -- 112 24 -- -- 24 23 -- -- 313 44 35 -- 111 23 -- -- 112 -- -- -- 740 164 76 --

New Station - Existing Jointed Track -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 -- -- -- 194 24 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 209 49 27 --

New Station - Existing CWR 113 31 26 -- 111 27 22 -- 40 -- -- -- 56 -- -- -- 549 61 27 -- 29 -- -- -- 29 -- -- -- 257 64 34 --

New Special Trackwork - Existing Jointed 

Track 200 46 37 -- 200 55 44 -- 88 -- -- -- 39 -- -- -- 300 177 76 -- 59 -- -- -- 110 23 -- -- 200 49 22 --

New Special Trackwork - Existing CWR 300 200 134 -- 300 200 104 -- 200 50 34 -- 148 -- -- -- 549 200 137 -- 200 35 21 -- 200 61 43 -- 200 66 30 --

1 Distance to grade-crossing (e.g. 1/8 or 1/4-mile) is measured along tracks.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-35 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-36 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 7

One new roundtrip daily passenger train service would be introduced in Segment 7. 

Train speeds are expected to be 40 mph for passenger service and remain at 40 mph 

for freight service. The noise levels are expected to increase from 0 to 2 dBA, which 

may cause noise impacts (Table 4-9). For Category 2 land uses along main line

sections, there would be no noise impacts whether the existing tracks were jointed or 

CWR. Near at-grade crossings there would be potential moderate noise impacts at 

distances up to 139 feet and severe noise impacts up to 29 feet from the near track. 

For the new Mechanicville Station, there would potentially be moderate noise 

impacts up to 29 feet if the existing tracks are CWR. Where new special track work

would be introduced, there would be potential moderate noise impacts at distances 

up to 110 feet and 200 feet and severe noise impacts up to 23 feet and 61 feet, if 

existing tracks are jointed or CWR, respectively.

Segment 8

One new roundtrip daily passenger train service would be introduced in Segment 8. 

Train speeds are expected to be 60 mph for passenger service and increase from 

25 mph to 40 mph for freight trains. Due to the low existing volume of trains, 

introducing one new train has a more of an effect than other segments. Future noise 

levels would increase up to 6 dBA, which may cause noise impacts (Table 4-9). For

Category 2 land uses along main line sections with existing jointed track, the 

potential for moderate noise impacts would extend up to 100 feet from the near track. 

For main line sections with existing CWR, potential moderate and severe noise 

impacts would extend up to 147 and 26 feet, respectively. Near the at-grade crossings 

there would be potential moderate noise impacts at distances up to 905 feet and 

severe noise impacts up to 207 feet from the near track.

For the new North Bennington Station, there would potentially be moderate noise 

impacts up to 209 feet and 257 feet and severe impacts up to 49 feet and 64 feet where 

existing tracks are jointed or CWR, respectively. Where new special track work

would be introduced, there would potentially be moderate noise impacts at distances 

up to 200 feet whether existing tracks were jointed or CWR. There would potentially 

be severe noise impacts up to 49 feet and 64 feet, if existing tracks are jointed or 

CWR, respectively. There is also the potential for moderate noise impact at 

Category 3 land uses for most operating conditions.

Segment 9

Existing and future freight and passenger train operations in Segment 9 are identical 

to Segment 8, as listed in Table 4-9. For the new Manchester Station, there would 

potentially be moderate noise impacts up to 209 feet and 257 feet and severe impacts 

up to 49 feet and 64 feet where existing tracks are jointed or CWR, respectively. 

Where new special track work would be introduced, there would potentially be 

moderate noise impacts at distances up to 200 feet whether existing tracks were 

jointed or CWR. There would potentially be severe noise impacts up to 49 feet and 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-37 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

64 feet, if existing tracks are jointed or CWR, respectively. There is also the potential 

for moderate noise impact at Category 3 land uses for most operating conditions.

Segment 10

Existing and future freight and passenger train operations in Segment 10 are 

identical to Segment 8, as listed in Table 4-9. No new stations are proposed for 

Segment 10.

4.5.3.3 Summary

Table 4-9 summarizes the noise assessment results. Potential moderate noise impacts 

typically extend out 100 to 200 feet from the near track. Potential severe noise 

impacts typically extend out less than 50 feet from the near track.

There is a potential for noise impact in Segments 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The potential for 

noise impacts is the greatest in Segments 8, 9, and 10; there would be a reduction of 

noise in Segment 6. Several segments would not have the potential for moderate or 

severe noise impacts along main line sections because there are no grade crossings, 

new special track work, or new stations.

Noise impacts would be mitigated in accordance with FTA guidance. Detailed 

analyses during a subsequent Phase 2 Study would identify specific locations for and 

types of noise mitigation measures. Noise mitigation would be considered 

depending on the need, feasibility, reasonableness, and effectiveness of potential 

options. In considering potential noise impact, severe impacts should be mitigated if 

at all practical. At the moderate impact level, more discretion should be used, and 

other project-specific factors should be included in considering mitigation. These 

factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and 

number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-to-indoor sound 

insulation, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigating the noise.

To mitigate noise impact from train operations, noise control can be considered at the 

source, along the sound path, and at the receiver. Detailed recommendations for 

specific segments of the selected alternative would require additional evaluation. 

Typical noise mitigation measures are:

 Noise Barriers: Noise barrier construction is the most common path noise control 

treatment and can be very effective at reducing noise levels in the community. 

Noise barriers are effective generally when they are tall enough to break the lineof-sight from the sound source to the receiver.

 Relocation or Use of Engineered Special Track work: Wheels traveling over rail 

gaps at track crossovers or turn-outs increase noise and can be a significant factor 

causing potential noise impact when they are near sensitive receptors. Relocating 

special track work away from sensitive receptors can help to mitigation potential 

impact. Another approach is to use engineered special track work such as springAffected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-38 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

rail or moveable point frogs in place of standard rigid frogs at turnouts. These 

devices close the gaps in the rail running surface and minimize potential 

increases in noise.

 Building Sound Insulation: Sound insulation to improve the outdoor-to-indoor 

noise reduction has been widely applied around airports. Although this 

approach has no effect on noise in exterior areas, it may be the best choice for 

sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable, and for buildings where 

indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements in building 

sound insulation (on the order of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding 

an extra layer of glazing to the windows, by sealing any holes in exterior surfaces 

that act as sound leaks, and by providing forced ventilation and air-conditioning 

so that windows do not need to be opened.

 Wayside Horn/Quiet Zones: Implementing quiet zones or installing wayside 

horns can significantly reduce noise due to horn blowing in areas where there is 

a shared freight corridor.

 Property Acquisitions or Easements: Additional options for avoiding noise 

impacts are for the agency to purchase residences likely to be impacted by train 

operations or to acquire easements for such residences by paying the 

homeowners to accept the future train noise conditions. These approaches are 

usually taken only in isolated cases where other mitigation options are infeasible, 

impractical, or too costly.

4.6 Vibration

Introducing new or additional passenger rail service and/or infrastructure 

improvements has the potential to increase vibration along the selected route. This 

section describes the existing vibration environment and the potential impacts from 

the project along each segment.

4.6.1 Methodology

The vibration impact assessment is based on the methodology defined in the FRA’s 

High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (October 2005) 

and in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

(May 2006).

Ground-borne vibration is the oscillatory motion of the ground about some 

equilibrium position that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or 

acceleration. Because sensitivity to vibration typically corresponds to the amplitude 

of vibration velocity within the low-frequency range of most concern for 

environmental vibration (roughly 4 to 80 Hz), velocity is the preferred measure for 

evaluating ground-borne vibration from rail projects. Ground-borne vibration from 

rail systems is usually characterized in terms of the root mean square (rms) vibration 

velocity level, in vibration decibels (VdB), with a reference quantity of one microAffected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-39 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

inch per second. VdB is used in place of dB to avoid confusing vibration decibels 

with sound decibels.

Ground-borne noise is produced when ground-borne vibration propagates into a 

room and radiates noise from the motion of the surfaces. Ground-borne noise is 

perceived as a low frequency rumble and is generally considered only when airborne 

paths are not present (e.g., train inside a tunnel or a large masonry building with no 

windows or other openings to the outdoors). As described below, there are separate 

criteria for potential impact from airborne noise versus ground-borne noise.

Potential vibration impact has been assessed by modeling existing and future 

conditions based on available data for passenger and freight train operations 

including improvements to the infrastructure which may affect future vibration 

levels. Vibration levels have been modeled based on the general assessment method 

used in the FRA and FTA guidance manuals. Future vibration levels can be affected 

by several factors:

 Trains generate higher vibration levels with higher speeds. Infrastructure 

improvements to the track that increase the maximum allowable speed would 

result in higher vibration levels.

 Trains generate more vibration when operating on jointed track or over special 

track work because there are gaps in the rail running surface which the wheels 

encounter. The project would replace any existing jointed track with CWR which 

would help to reduce future noise conditions.

 Constructing new track sidings may increase future vibration conditions because 

tracks could potentially be relocated closer to receptors and special track work

would be introduced at one or both ends of the sidings.

 Constructing new stations would typically reduce future vibration conditions 

since passenger train speeds would be reduced compared to main line speeds as 

the train approaches and departs the stations.

Since the specific locations of existing jointed track, new track sidings, and new 

station locations have not been determined, distances of potential vibration impacts 

to sensitive receptor locations (measured from the near track centerline) have been 

computed. The following conditions have been analyzed:

 Main line sections;

 New passenger train station locations; and

 New special track work locations.

According to the FRA and FTA, vibration-sensitive land uses are:

 Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within 

the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with 

human annoyance. These may include vibration-sensitive equipment.

 Category 2: Places where people normally sleep. This includes residences, 

hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost 

importance.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-40 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, churches and parks with passive use.

 Special-use Buildings: Concert halls, theatres and other special-use buildings 

have separate ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise criteria. Due to 

the sensitivity of these buildings, they usually warrant special attention during 

the environmental assessment.

The FTA and FRA vibration and ground-borne noise impact criteria are based on 

land use and train frequency. Tables 4-10 and 4-11 present the ground-borne noise 

and vibration impact criteria for the three land use categories and special buildings, 

respectively.

Table 4-10 FTA Ground-borne Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria

Land Use Category

Ground-borne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/second)

Ground-borne Noise Impact Levels

(dBA re 20 micro-pascals)

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Category 1 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 n/a5 n/a5 n/a5

Category 2 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Source: FTA, 2006. 

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events 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 kind per day. Most commuter rail 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 branch lines. 

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. 

5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

Table 4-11 FTA Ground-borne Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria for Special Buildings

Type of Building or Room3

Ground-borne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/second)

Ground-borne Noise Impact Levels

(dBA re 20 micro-pascals)

Frequent Events1

Occasional or 

Infrequent Events2 Frequent Events1

Occasional or 

Infrequent Events2

Concert Halls 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

TV Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Recording Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Auditoriums 72 VdB 80 VdB 30 dBA 38 dBA

Theatres 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA

Source: FTA, 2006.

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category.

2 “Occasional or Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter rail lines.

3 If the building will rarely be occupied when the trains are operating, there is no need to consider impact. As an example consider locating a commuter rail line 

next to a concert hall. If no commuter trains will operate after 7 pm, it should be rare that the trains interfere with the use of the hall.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-41 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

For projects in existing railroad ROWs, where receptors may already be exposed to 

vibration, the applicable vibration criteria also depend on the existing number of 

trains per day:

 For infrequently used rail corridors (less than five trains per day), potential 

impact is assessed by comparing vibration levels from the project to the FRA 

criteria regardless of existing vibration levels. Segments 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are 

infrequently used segments.

 For moderately used rail corridors (five to 12 trains per day), there would be no 

impact if the project vibration levels are lower than the existing levels by 5 VdB 

or more. Otherwise, potential impact is assessed by comparing vibration levels 

from the project to the FRA criteria. None of the segments for the project are 

moderately used.

 For heavily used rail corridors (more than 12 trains per day), the project will 

cause additional impact if the project significantly increases the number of 

vibration events (e.g., doubles the number of trains). If there is not a significant 

increase in vibration events, there will be additional impact only if the project 

vibration will be 3 VdB or higher than existing vibration. Segments 1, 2, 3, and 7 

are heavily used segments.

For this project, where the number of vibration events are less than 30 per day 

(infrequent events), the vibration criterion is 80 VdB for Category 2 land uses and 

83 VdB for Category 3 land uses for Segments 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. For Segments 1, 2, 3, 

and 7, future vibration levels would occur if vibration levels are above 80 VdB for 

Category 2 and 83 VdB for Category 3 land uses and also if vibration levels would 

increase 3 VdB of more.

4.6.2 Existing Conditions

This section describes existing vibration conditions for each of the segments. 

Although there could be land uses that are sensitive to vibration that are not sensitive 

to noise (i.e., research institutes with vibration-sensitive equipment), no such land 

uses were identified in the project study area. Similarly, there are outdoor noisesensitive land uses (i.e., parks or cemeteries) which are not sensitive to vibration. 

Therefore, existing vibration-sensitive land uses in each segment are as described in 

the Section 4.3.3.2, Noise.

Segments 1, 2, 3, and 7 are considered heavily used rail corridors because there are 

currently more than 12 passenger and/or freight trains operating daily. Segments 4, 

6, 8, 9, and 10 are considered infrequently used rail corridors because there are 

currently fewer than five passenger and/or freight trains operating daily.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-42 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.6.3 Environmental Consequences

This section describes potential vibration impacts for each of the segments. Distances 

to potential vibration impact for each segment, each operating condition, and both 

Category 2 and Category 3 land uses, are presented in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12 Distance to Potential Vibration Impact (ft)

Segments

Project Element

1 2 3 4 6 7 8-10

Land Use Category

2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3

Main line 94 66 86 60 86 60

New Station 29 20 29 20

New Special Track work 200 183 157 110 172 120 200 183 172 120 157 110 172 120

Note: Blank = No vibration impact.

4.6.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not increase vibration.

4.6.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Segment 1

Train speeds are not expected to increase in Segment 1. No increases in future 

vibration levels would occur on main line sections and there would be no impact. At 

locations where new special track work is introduced, future vibration levels would 

increase more than 3 VdB (Table 4-12). There is a potential for potential vibration 

impacts up to 200 feet from the near track (where vibration levels would exceed 

80 VdB) for Category 2 land uses and up to 183 feet from the near track (where 

vibration levels would exceed 83 VdB) for Category 3 land uses.

Segment 2

Although train speeds would increase from 50 mph to 55 mph in Segment 2, 

increases in vibration levels would be less than 3 VdB and there would be no impacts 

along main line sections (Table 4-12). At locations where new special track work is 

introduced, future vibration levels would increase more than 3 VdB and there would

potential be vibration impacts up to 157 feet from the near track for Category 2 land 

uses and up to 110 feet from the near track for Category 3 land uses.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-43 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 3

There are currently more than 12 passenger and freight trains operating along this 

segment, so it is considered a heavily used corridor. Maximum allowable train 

speeds are not expected to increase in this segment, remaining at 40 mph for freight 

service and 60 mph for passenger service. No increases in future vibration levels 

would occur on mainline segments and there would be no impact. At locations 

where new special trackwork is introduced, future vibration levels would increase 

more than 3 VdB and there would potential vibration impact up to 172 feet from the 

near track for Category 2 land uses and up to 120 feet from the near track for 

Category 3 land uses.

Segment 4

There are currently less than five passenger and freight trains operating along this 

segment, so it is considered to be an infrequently used rail corridor. Introducing

additional vibration events may cause impact if they exceed the vibration criteria. 

Maximum train speeds are not expected to increase in this segment, remaining at 

40 mph for freight service and 60 mph for passenger service. For mainline sections, 

there would be potential vibration impact up to 94 feet from the near track for 

Category 2 land uses and up to 66 feet for Category 3 land uses. At locations where 

new special trackwork is introduced, future vibration levels would increase and 

there would potential vibration impact up to 200 feet from the near track for 

Category 2 land uses and up to 183 feet from the near track for Category 3 land uses.

Segment 6

Train speeds are expected to be 40 mph for passenger service and remain 40 mph for 

freight service in Segment 6. For main line sections, there would potentially be 

vibration impacts up to 86 feet from the near track for Category 2 land uses and up to 

60 feet for Category 3 land uses (Table 4-12). At locations where new special track 

work is introduced, future vibration levels would increase and there would 

potentially be vibration impacts up to 172 feet from the near track for Category 2 

land uses and up to 120 feet from the near track for Category 3 land uses.

Segment 7

Train speeds are expected to be 40 mph for passenger service and remain 40 mph for 

freight service in Segment 7. No increases in future vibration levels would occur on main 

line sections or at new station locations and there would be no impact (Table 4-12). At 

locations where new special track work is introduced, future vibration levels would 

increase more than 3 VdB and there would potentially be vibration impacts up to 157 feet 

from the near track for Category 2 land uses and up to 110 feet from the near track for 

Category 3 land uses.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-44 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 8

Train speeds are expected to be 60 mph for passenger service and increase from 

25 mph to 40 mph for freight trains in Segment 8. For main line sections, there would 

potentially be vibration impacts up to 86 feet from the near track for Category 2 land 

uses and up to 60 feet for Category 3 land uses (Table 4-12). At new station locations 

where train speeds are lower than main line sections, there would potentially be 

vibration impacts up to 29 feet from the near track for Category 2 land uses and up to 

20 feet for Category 3 land uses. At locations where new special track work is 

introduced, future vibration levels would increase and there would potentially be 

vibration impacts up to 172 feet from the near track for Category 2 land uses and up 

to 120 feet from the near track for Category 3 land uses.

Segment 9

Future freight and passenger train operations and vibration impacts in Segment 9 are 

identical to Segment 8 (Table 4-12).

Segment 10

Future freight and passenger train operations and vibration impacts in Segment 10 

are identical to Segment 8 (Table 4-12).

4.6.3.3 Summary

Table 4-12 summarizes the vibration assessment results. The analysis indicates there is 

a potential for vibration impacts in all segments. For mainline sections, there would be 

potential vibration impact up to 94 feet from the near track for Category 2 land uses

and up to 66 feet for Category 3 land uses. At new station locations there may be 

vibration impacts up to 20 feet from the near track for Category 2 land uses and up to 

29 feet from the near track for Category 3 land uses. At locations where new special 

track work is introduced, vibration impacts may extend up to 200 feet from the near 

track for Category 2 land uses and up to 183 feet for Category 3 land uses.

Vibration impacts would be mitigated in accordance with FTA guidance. Detailed 

analyses during a subsequent Project Level analysis would identify specific locations 

for and types of vibration mitigation measures. The purpose of vibration mitigation 

is to minimize adverse effects from the project at sensitive locations. The 

effectiveness of specific vibration mitigation measures is dependent on several 

factors such as the component design, installation techniques, axle loads of the trains, 

and frequencies of concern. Detailed recommendations for specific segments of the 

corridor would require additional evaluation. Typical noise mitigation measures are:

 Resilient rail fasteners that are specially designed fasteners between the rails and 

the ties.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-45 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Ballast mats that are rubber or other elastomer pads placed in the trackform 

between the ballast and the sub-grade or ground.

 Resiliently supported ties that have a rubber or other resilient material placed 

between the ties and the ballast.

 Tire-derived aggregate, also known as shredded tires, that can be layered under 

the sub-ballast to reduced vibration levels.

 Floating slab trackforms that consist of a concrete slab supported on resilient 

elements such as rubber or elastomer pads.

 Special hardware (e.g., spring-rail or moveable-point frogs in place of standard 

rigid frogs) for special track work such as turnouts and crossovers.

 Relocating special track work away from sensitive areas and using CWR rather 

than jointed rail.

Maintenance programs can also be essential for controlling vibration. Maintaining a 

proper wheel/rail profile, minimizing the number and extent of wheel flats and 

minimizing potential rail corrugation are important factors. Rail grinding, truing 

wheels and monitoring wheel/rail profiles can be effective means of reducing 

potential vibration impact.

4.7 Water Resources

Many water resources within the project study area are crossed by the existing rail 

line. Because this is a Service Level study, current designs do not include detailed 

plans on modifications to existing stream and river crossings to upgrade the existing 

main line track or construct new sidings. Bridges rated as “poor” in Segments 8 and 9 

would be reconstructed.

This section describes the surface water and groundwater resources in proximity to 

the rail segments. Once the design has advanced to identify upgraded or new

crossing locations, surface water resources would be delineated prior to or 

concurrently with the design phase, in order to design the crossing to avoid and/or 

minimize impacts to regulated surface water bodies. If it is determined that impacts 

to waters are unavoidable, authorization for unavoidable impacts would be sought 

from the appropriate federal and state agencies, including the US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) (under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and the New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) or the Vermont

Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) through the joint permit 

application process.

In New York, stormwater runoff from construction sites would require compliance 

with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. A Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan consistent with the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion 

and Sediment Control would be developed once the project design identifies specific 

rail improvements. In Vermont, stormwater runoff from construction sites would 

require compliance with the VTDEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharges 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-46 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Associated with Construction Activities. Other impacts to surface waters in Vermont 

are regulated by the VTDEC Water Quality Division River Management Section.

4.7.1 Methodology

Information regarding the streams, lakes, pond, and well head protection areas 

(groundwater supply sources) was provided by state agencies. Surface water and 

groundwater resources were reviewed using digital mapping information of 

hydrography provided by the Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI) and 

the New York State GIS Data Clearinghouse. Surface water resources within 250 feet of 

the rail ROW were identified. The total number of features within the project study 

area is provided, as well as stream names when available. Existing stream or river 

crossings were identified for each segment. Groundwater resource mapping was only 

available for Segments 9 and 10, and the Vermont portion of Segment 8.

4.7.2 Existing Conditions

The project study area contains several dozen named streams and rivers and over 

100 other mapped stream crossings.

Segment 1

The majority of Segment 1 is located in heavily developed downtown areas. Water 

resources crossed by Segment 1 are the Hudson River, Sand Creek, Lisha Kill, and an 

unnamed stream (crossed twice). Adjacent water resources (within 250 feet) include 

Patroons Creek and Rensselaer Lake. None of the surface water resources near 

Segment 1 are designated Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers. Two surface water 

bodies near Segment 1 are identified as impaired waters under Section 303d of the 

Clean Water Act, the Lower Hudson River and Patroon Creek.

Segment 2

Water resources crossed by Segment 2 are the Mohawk River and two unnamed 

tributaries, and Alplaus Kill and one unnamed tributary. Two other unnamed 

tributaries to Alplaus Kill are adjacent to this segment. None of the surface water 

resources near Segment 2 are designated Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers, and

none are identified as impaired waters.

Segment 3

Water resources crossed by Segment 3 are three unnamed tributaries to Ballston 

Lake, Mourning Kill and four unnamed tributaries, Kayaderosseras Creek, Geyser 

Brook, Putnam Brook, an unnamed tributary to Loughberry Lake, Delegan Brook, 

Rice Brook, Snook Kill, North Branch, the Hudson River, the Old Champlain Canal 

and six tributaries, and Halfway Creek. None of the surface water resources near 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-47 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 3 are designated Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers, and none are 

identified as impaired waters.

Segment 4

Four community water supply wells are in close proximity to Segment 4 and their

source protection zones extend into the rail ROW. Water resources crossed by 

Segment 4 are the Old Champlain Canal, the Mettawee River, Mud Brook and four 

tributaries, the Poultney River, the Castleton River and an unnamed tributary, Pond 

Hill Brook, the Clarendon River, Otter Creek, and East Creek. One water resource is 

within 250 feet of Segment 4: North Breton Brook flows adjacent to the rail line. None 

of the surface water resources near Segment 4 are designated Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreational. One surface water body near Segment 4 is an impaired water: Otter 

Creek.

Segment 6

Water resources crossed by Segment 6 are two unnamed tributaries to the Alplaus 

Kill, Cooley Kill and an unnamed tributary, Long Kill, and Dwaas Kill and two 

unnamed tributaries. Anthony Kill is adjacent to this segment. None of the surface 

water resources near Segment 6 are designated Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers. 

Four surface water bodies near Segment 6 are identified as impaired: Dwaas Kill and 

tributaries, Lower Hoosic River Main Stem Portion 1, Middle Hoosic River Main 

Stem Portion 2; and Middle Hoosic River Main Stem Portion 3.

Segment 7

Water resources crossed by Segment 7 are Anthony Kill, the Hudson River and four 

unnamed tributaries, Tomhannock Creek and two unnamed tributaries, Hoosic River 

and six unnamed tributaries, Electric Lake, Nipmoose Brook, and Case Brook. Two 

surface water resources are adjacent to Segment 7, Pine Lake and Golden Pond. None 

of the surface water resources near Segment 7 are designated Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreational rivers, and none are identified as impaired.

Segment 8

Water resources crossed by Segment 8 are the Walloomsac River and an unnamed 

tributary, and Cold Spring Brook. None of the surface water resources near 

Segment 8 are designated Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers, and none are

identified as impaired.

Segment 9

Two community water supply wells and one non-transient non-community water 

supply well are proximate to Segment 9 and the source protection areas extend into 

the rail ROW. Water resources crossed by Segment 9 are Cold Spring Brook, Paran 

Creek, Warm Brook, Mill Brook, Batten Kill, Lye Brook, and Bourn Brook. Two 

surface water bodies are adjacent to Segment 9, Lake Shaftsbury and Dry Brook. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-48 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

None of the surface water resources near Segment 9 are designated Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreational rivers, and none are identified as impaired.

Segment 10

There are two groundwater wells near Segment 10, and their well head protection 

areas extend into the rail ROW. Surface water resources crossed by Segment 10 are 

the Batten Kill River, Dufresne Pond, Otter Creek, Gulf Brook, Mill Brook, HomerStone Brook, Roaring Brook, Mill River, Cold River, Mussey Brook, and Moon Brook. 

Emerald Lake is adjacent to this segment. None of the surface water resources near 

Segment 10 are designated Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers. One surface water 

body near Segment 10, Moon Brook, is identified as impaired. The Roaring Brook 

watershed is a public water supply where it crosses the Segment 10 rail ROW.

4.7.3 Environmental Consequences

Impacts to surface water and groundwater resources were only considered for those 

areas where project actions could have a direct impact through alteration of drainage 

patterns or could cause discharges to water resources. The project is not expected to 

increase the impervious area footprint or alter the terrain in a significant manner; no 

indirect impacts to water quality are expected.

Rail improvements may require that certain segments of track and their associated 

culvert and bridge crossing(s) be modified. Crossings with potential upgrades will 

need to be evaluated on case-by-case basis and, at a minimum, the work will need to 

comply with all state and/or federal permit requirements and recommendations 

regarding hydraulic capacity, aquatic organism passage, and water quality.

Potential impacts to water resources within each segment are summarized below.

4.7.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no new impacts to water quality.

4.7.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Overall, no significant impacts to water resources are anticipated because work 

would be limited to upgrading or reconstructing existing stream crossings. No new 

stormwater discharges to surface water bodies or groundwater are anticipated

because the existing rail lines would be used.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-49 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 1

The potential for impacts to surface water or groundwater resources along Segment 1 

is negligible. No infrastructure improvements are planned for Segment 1.

Segment 2

The potential for impacts to groundwater resources along Segment 2 is negligible. 

Infrastructure improvements in this segment would consist of constructing 2 miles of 

new siding track within the existing ROW; upgrading the crossings to accommodate 

the new siding would not permanently impact surface water resources.

Segment 3

The potential for impacts to surface water or groundwater resources along Segment 3

is negligible. No infrastructure improvements are planned for Segment 3.

Segment 4

The potential for impacts to surface water or groundwater resources along Segment 4

is negligible. No infrastructure improvements are planned for Segment 4.

Segment 6

The potential for impacts to groundwater resources along Segment 6 is negligible. 

Infrastructure improvements in this segment would consist of constructing 6 miles of 

new siding within the existing ROW; upgrading the crossings to accommodate the 

new siding would not permanently impact surface water resources. No new 

crossings are planned.

Segment 7

The potential for impacts to groundwater resources along Segment 7 is negligible. 

Infrastructure improvements in this segment would consist of constructing a second 

main line track and a new station in Mechanicville; upgrading the crossings to 

accommodate the track would not permanently impact surface water resources.

Segment 8

The potential for impacts to groundwater resources along Segment 8 is negligible. 

Infrastructure improvements in this segment would consist of upgrading the main 

line track, reconstructing all bridges rated “poor,” and constructing a new station in 

North Bennington, all within the existing ROW. Upgrading the crossings to 

accommodate the infrastructure improvements and reconstructing bridges would 

not permanently impact surface water resources.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-50 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 9

The potential for impacts to groundwater resources along Segment 9 is negligible. 

Infrastructure improvements in this segment would consist of main line track 

upgrades, reconstruction of all bridges rated “poor,” and constructing a new station 

in Manchester, all within the existing ROW. Upgrading the crossings to 

accommodate the new infrastructure and reconstructing bridges would not 

permanently impact surface water resources.

Segment 10

The potential for impacts to groundwater resources along Segment 10 is negligible. 

Infrastructure improvements in this segment would consist of upgrading the main 

line track; upgrading the crossings to accommodate the new track would not 

permanently impact surface water resources.

4.7.3.3 Summary

Numerous surface water bodies are crossed by or adjacent to the rail ROW in each 

segment. Table 4-13 summarizes the number of surface water and groundwater 

resources along each segment. There is a negligible potential for impacts to surface 

water or groundwater resources in any of the segments: either no infrastructure 

improvements are planned or the planned infrastructure improvements would be 

within the existing ROW and would not permanently impact the resources.

Table 4-13 Summary of Surface Water and Groundwater Resources

Segment 

Number

Surface Water Bodies

Groundwater Wells1 Crossed by Rail Adjacent to ROW Impaired

1 4 2 2 0

2 5 2 0 0

3 25 0 0 0

4 14 1 1 4

6 8 1 4 0

7 19 2 0 0

8 3 0 0 0

9 7 2 0 2

10 11 1 1 2

1 Including wellhead protection areas.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-51 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.8 Wetlands

Wetlands are critical environmental resources that perform functions such as wildlife 

habitat, flood attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, and others. 

Wetlands are regulated by the USACE (New England District in Vermont and New 

York District in the eastern portion of New York) through the Clean Water Act 

Section 404 permit process. In New York, the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands 

Program regulates wetlands. In Vermont, the VTDEC Wetlands Section regulates 

impacts to significant wetlands and their buffer zones.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26961), establishes 

a federal policy to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse 

impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid 

direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a 

practicable alternative.

4.8.1 Methodology

Wetland features along each segment within 250 feet of the rail centerline were 

identified by using Vermont State Wetland Inventory (VSWI, 2010) from VTANR 

and NYSDEC wetlands map (2010) data, as well as National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI) data.

4.8.2 Existing Conditions

The wetland analyses identified several hundred wetland features that are in 

proximity to the study corridor. Wetland resources for each segment are provided 

summarized below.

Segment 1

There are 64 potential wetland features identified on the NWI or by the NYSDEC, 

adjacent to or extending into approximately 4 miles of Segment 1. These wetlands are 

generally small with the exception of a large wetland complex associated with the 

Lisha Kill, adjacent to the rail ROW in Colonie, Rotterdam, and Schenectady, NY.

Segment 2

There are 50 potential wetland features identified on the NWI or by the NYEC, 

adjacent to or extending into approximately 5 miles of Segment 2. These potential 

wetlands are associated with the Alplaus Kill in Glenville and Clifton Park, NY and 

the Mohawk River on the Schenectady-Glenville town line. Portions of the Mohawk 

River are listed as a lake wetland due to impoundments.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-52 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 3

There are 213 potential wetland features identified on the NWI or by the NYS DEC, 

adjacent to or extending into approximately 40 miles of Segment 3. Wetlands in this 

section are associated with Ballston Lake in Ballston, Kayaderosseras Creek north of 

the Village of Ballston Spa in Milton, Geyser Creek in Saratoga Springs, Putnam 

Brook in Saratoga Springs and Greenfield, a tributary to Loughberry Lake in Milton, 

Delegan Brook in Milton, Rice Brook in Northumberland, Snook Kill in 

Northumberland, the North Branch in Moreau, the Hudson River on the MoreauFort Edward town line, and the Old Champlain Canal in the towns of Fort Edward, 

Kingsbury, Fort Ann, and Whitehall.

Segment 4

There are 85 potential wetland features identified on the NWI or VSWI, adjacent to or 

extending into approximately 16 miles of Segment 4. Key wetlands are associated 

with the Mettawee River, Mud Brook and the Old Champlain Canal in Whitehall, 

NY. A large complex of wetlands associated with the Castleton River is in close 

proximity to the railroad through the towns of Fair Haven, Castleton, Ira, and West 

Rutland, VT.

Segment 6

There are 69 potential wetland features identified on the NWI or by the NYSDEC, 

adjacent to or extending into approximately 9.5 miles of Segment 6. A large wetland 

complex is adjacent to the ROW for about 2.5 miles from Ashdown Road to Tanner 

Road in Clifton Park, NY. The Anthony Kill wetland complex also is adjacent to the 

ROW for approximately 2.5 miles in Halfmoon, Stillwater, and Mechanicville, NY.

Segment 7

There are 99 potential wetland features identified on the NWI or by the NYSDEC, 

adjacent to or extending into approximately 20 miles of Segment 7. The Anthony Kill 

wetland is crossed in Mechanicville, NY at the location of the proposed new wye 

associated with Segment 5. In Stillwater, approximately 1 mile of the ROW is adjacent 

to or within wetlands that are associated with the Hudson River and its floodplain. 

There are some isolated wetland features along the ROW just west of Schaghticoke, 

including a wetland associated with Tomhannock Creek that is crossed by the rail line. 

A wetland system that incorporates Electric Lake and the Hoosic River follows the 

ROW from Schaghticoke east for 3.5 miles. In Pittstown, there is small wetland on Pine 

Lake and a larger complex along 1.2 miles of the ROW just west of East Buskirk. Two 

smaller wetland systems associated with Golden Pond and Case Brook in Hoosick are 

within 0.35 and 0.4 miles, respectively, of the ROW. The Hoosic River wetland complex 

also parallels about 1.3 miles of the ROW in Hoosick.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-53 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 8

There are 19 wetland features identified on the NWI, by the NYSDEC or the VSWI, 

adjacent to or extending into approximately 4.5 miles of Segment 8. The Walloomsac 

River wetland complex is crossed by the rail line three times in Hoosick, NY. One 

isolated wetland and two wetlands associated with a tributary to the Walloomsac 

River are located in Shaftsbury, VT.

Segment 9

There are 40 Class II wetlands adjacent to or extending into approximately 14 miles 

of Segment 9. There are 17 Class II wetlands in Shaftsbury, nine in Arlington, two in 

Sunderland, and 12 in Manchester, VT. In Shaftsbury and south of Arlington, the 

wetlands are primarily associated with small drainages and valley bottom features. 

Starting in North Arlington, through Sunderland and Manchester many of the 

wetland features are riverine and associated with Batten Kill.

Segment 10

There are 96 Class II wetlands adjacent to or extending into approximately 18 miles 

of Segment 10. There are six Class II wetlands in Manchester, 13 in Dorset, six in 

Danby, nine in Mount Tabor, 24 in Wallingford, 25 in Clarendon, eight in the Town 

of Rutland, and five in Rutland City, VT. In Manchester and south Dorset, the 

wetlands are primarily associated with the Batten Kill. From north Dorset to Rutland 

City, the wetlands are primarily associated with Otter Creek.

4.8.3 Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to wetlands from the No-Build and the Proposed Action 

Alternatives are described below.

4.8.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on wetlands.

4.8.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Wetlands extending into or adjacent to Segments 1, 3, and 4 are unlikely to be impacted 

by the project as no infrastructure improvements are planned. Wetlands extending into 

or adjacent to Segments 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are unlikely to be impacted by the project

unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the existing rail ROW or surface 

water crossings are modified in such as way as to change the hydraulic opening.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-54 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.8.3.3 Summary

Numerous potential wetland features have been mapped which are crossed by the 

rail line or adjacent to the ROW in each segment. Table 4-14 summarizes the number 

and adjoining length of wetlands present along each segment.

Table 4-14 Summary of Wetlands, by Segment

Segment 

Number

Adjacent Wetlands

Number Adjoining Length (miles)

1 64 4

2 50 5

3 213 40

4 85 16

6 69 9.5

7 99 20

8 19 4.5

9 40 14

10 96 18

At the current level of design, no permanent impacts to wetlands would be required 

for the Proposed Action Alternative. Potential impacts to wetland resources will be 

evaluated once the design identifies specific rail improvements. If it is determined 

that impacts from constructing new or modifying existing wetland crossings are 

unavoidable, authorization for unavoidable impacts would be sought from the 

appropriate Federal and state agencies, including the USACE (under Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act), the NYSDEC (under the Freshwater Wetlands Program), or the 

VTDEC Water Quality Division Wetland Section under the Vermont State Wetland 

Permit Program (pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6025(d)(5)).

At the current level of design, the project would be in compliance with EO 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands. Detailed evaluations would be required to specifically identify 

impacts and compliance with this EO during final design.

4.9 Floodplains

Floodplain areas are zones adjacent to streams, rivers, lakes, or other surface waters 

that are periodically inundated, usually as a result of large precipitation events. 

Development within floodplains may be at risk due to possible inundation and also 

endangers downstream areas by reducing flood storage capacity.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977; 42 FR 26951), requires 

federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse 

impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-55 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) currently maintains floodplain 

mapping and possible changes to mapping in Letters of Map Amendment or Letters 

of Map Change. New York and Vermont both have cooperative agreements with 

FEMA to review floodplain impacts and request additional information such as 

elevation survey and hydraulic calculations.

4.9.1 Methodology

The floodplain assessment utilized FEMA GIS data provided by VCGI (2010) and 

NYS GDC (2010) was overlain on base mapping containing the railroad segments. 

Digital flood map data were not available for all portions of all segments and the 

analysis extent is indicated where coverage was incomplete.

4.9.2 Existing Conditions

The segments are within or adjacent to several mapped 100-year and 500-year 

floodplains. In some cases the railroad bed is a topographic divide between two areas 

mapped as floodplains. Floodplains within or adjacent to the rail ROW are 

summarized below for each segment.

Segment 1

Flood data were available for Rensselaer, Albany, Colonie, and Guilderland, NY but 

were not available for Rotterdam or Schenectady, NY. Segment 1 is within or 

adjacent to 100- or 500-year floodplains associated with the Hudson River in Albany 

and Rensselaer, Tivoli Lake and Patroons Creek in Albany, Sand Creek in Colonie, 

Rensselaer Lake in Guilderland, and Lisha Kill in Colonie.

Segment 2

Flood data were available for Clifton Park but were not available for Glenville or 

Schenectady, NY. Segment 2 is within or adjacent to the Alplaus Kill 100-year 

floodplain in Clifton Park.

Segment 3

Flood data were available for Ballston, Milton, Saratoga Springs, Northumberland, 

and Moreau, but were not available for Greenfield, Wilton, Fort Edward, Kingsbury, 

Fort Ann, or Whitehall. Segment 3is within or is adjacent to the Ballston Lake 

100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain in Ballston, the Mourning Kill 

100-year floodplain in Ballston,the Kayaderosseras Creek 100-year floodplain in 

Milton, the Slade Creek and Geyser Brook 100-year floodplain in Saratoga Springs,

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-56 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

the Putnam Brook 100-year floodplain in Saratoga Springs, the Snook Kill 100-year 

floodplain in Northumberland, the 500-year floodplain of an unnamed tributary to 

the North Branch of the Snook Kill in Moreau, the 100-year floodplain of the North 

Branch of the Snook Kill in Moreau; and the 100-year floodplain of the Hudson River 

in Moreau.

Segment 4

Flood data were available for Fair Haven, Castleton, Ira, Rutland, and Rutland City, 

VT but were not available for Whitehall or Hampton, NY or for West Rutland, VT. 

Segment 4 is within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain of the Poultney River in 

Fair Haven; the 100-year floodplain of the Castleton River in Fair Haven; the 100-year

floodplain of Lake Bomoseen in Castleton; the 100-year floodplain of the Castleton 

River in Castleton, Ira, and West Rutland; the 100-year floodplain of the Clarendon 

River in West Rutland; the 100-year floodplain of the Otter Creek in West Rutland; 

and the 100-year floodplain of East Creek in Rutland City.

Segment 6

Flood data were available for Clifton Park, Halfmoon, and Mechanicville, NY. 

Segment 6 is within or adjacent to the 100- or 500-year floodplains associated with 

Cooley Kill and Long Kill in Clifton Park; Dwaas Kill and Anthony Kill in Halfmoon; 

and Anthony Kill in Mechanicville.

Segment 7

Flood data were available for Mechanicville, Stillwater, Schaghticoke, Pittstown, and 

Hoosick, NY. Segment 7 is within or adjacent to the 100- or 500-year floodplains 

associated with Anthony Kill in Mechanicville; the Hudson River between Stillwater and 

Schaghticoke; Tomhannock Creek in Schaghticoke; the Hoosick River and Electric Lake 

in Schaghticoke; the Hoosick River in Pittstown; and the Hoosick River in Hoosick.

Segment 8

Flood data were available for Hoosick, NY, and were not available for the towns of 

Shaftsbury or Bennington, VT. Segment 8 is within or adjacent to the Hoosick River 

100-year floodplain in Hoosick.

Segment 9

There was no digital flood data available for Bennington, Shaftsbury, Arlington, 

Sunderland, or Manchester, VT. Additional review of non-digital FEMA maps for 

this area would be conducted to determine the presence of floodplain resources 

within Segment 9.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-57 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 10

Flood data were available for Danby, Mount Tabor (partial), Wallingford, Clarendon, 

Rutland, and Rutland City but were not available for Manchester or Dorset, VT. 

Segment 10 is within or adjacent to the 100- or 500-year floodplains associated with 

Mill Brook in Danby; Otter Creek between Danby and Mount Tabor; Otter Creek and 

an unnamed tributary, Homer Stone Brook, and Roaring Brook in Wallingford; Otter 

Creek and an unnamed tributary, Mill River, and the Cold River in Clarendon; and 

Mussey Brook and Moon Brook in Rutland City.

4.9.3 Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to floodplains from the No-Build and the Proposed Action 

Alternatives are described below.

4.9.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on floodplains.

4.9.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

The current level of design does not indicate that modifying existing crossings or 

reconstructing the existing railbed would impact floodplains. New rail construction 

or existing rail modification would be within the existing rail ROW and unlikely to 

impact adjacent floodplains.

Segment 1

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to the railroad in Segment 1 are unlikely to be 

impacted by the project because no infrastructure improvements are proposed.

Segment 2

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to the railroad in Segment 2 are unlikely to be 

impacted by the project unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the 

existing rail ROW or surface water crossings are modified in such as way as to 

change the hydraulic opening.

Segment 3

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to the railroad in Segment 3 are unlikely to be 

impacted by the project because no infrastructure improvements are proposed.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-58 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 4

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to the railroad in Segment 4 are unlikely to be 

impacted by the project because no infrastructure improvements are proposed.

Segment 6

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to Segment 6 are unlikely to be impacted by the 

project unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the existing rail ROW 

or surface water crossings are modified in such as way as to change the hydraulic 

opening.

Segment 7

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to Segment 7 are unlikely to be impacted by the 

project unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the existing rail ROW 

or surface water crossings are modified in such as way as to change the hydraulic 

opening.

Segment 8

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to Segment 8 are unlikely to be impacted by the 

project unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the existing rail ROW 

or surface water crossings are modified in such as way as to change the hydraulic 

opening.

Segment 9

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to Segment 9 are unlikely to be impacted by the 

project unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the existing rail ROW or 

surface water crossings are modified in such as way as to change the hydraulic opening.

Segment 10

Floodplains crossed by or adjacent to Segment 10 are unlikely to be impacted by the 

project unless infrastructure improvements extend outside of the existing rail ROW or 

surface water crossings are modified in such a way as to change the hydraulic opening.

4.9.3.3 Summary

Each segment is within or adjacent to numerous mapped 100-year and 500-year 

floodplains in many towns and cities within the project study area. Electronic 

floodplain data is not available for several towns; it would be necessary to review 

hard copies of FEMA floodplain mapping for these towns to determine the extents of 

any floodplains located within the segments comprising the selected alternative. 

Table 4-15 summarizes the number of mapped floodplains crossed by or adjacent to 

each segment.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-59 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Potential impacts to floodplains will be re-evaluated once the project design 

identifies specific rail improvements. No significant impacts to floodplains are 

expected, and any impacts would be mitigated in compliance with the criteria within 

the National Flood Insurance Program for development within flood prone areas.

At the current level of design, the project would be in compliance with EO 11998, 

Floodplain Management. Detailed evaluations would be required to specifically 

identify impacts and compliance with this EO during final design.

Table 4-15 Summary of Floodplains, by Segment

Segment Number

Number of Floodplains

Crossed by Rail

Adjacent to ROW

(but not crossed)

1 3 2

2 0 1

3 4 5

4 4 4

6 3 1

7 6 0

8 1 0

9 0 0

10 9 0

4.10 Ecological Systems

Ecological systems are comprised of upland and wetland communities. Wetland 

communities are discussed in Section 4.8; this section focuses on the protected 

upland communities identified in the project study area. Important wildlife habitat 

and movement corridors (specifically, deer wintering areas or bear habitat in 

Vermont) are present in the project study area. This section describes the potential

presence of important wildlife habitat and corridors along each segment; the 

potential impacts of the alternatives; and recommendations for minimizing any 

potential impacts.

4.10.1 Methodology

The assessment of wildlife habitat and corridors included:

 Reviewing US Department of Interior – Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) online 

Federally protected species information;

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-60 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Reviewing Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Nongame and Natural 

Heritage Program (NNHP) Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species & 

Significant Communities GIS data (2010) , identifying Vermont state protected 

species and their habitat, Rare and Irreplaceable Natural Areas (RINAs), and 

bear habitat and deer wintering areas for wildlife corridors:

 Reviewing New York Natural Heritage Program’s (NYNHP) Biodiversity 

Database GIS data (2011), identifying New York state protected species and their 

habitat;

 Reviewing records of wildlife corridors within 250 feet of the rail corridor; and

 Evaluating potential impacts to the wildlife habitat and corridors found within 

the project study area that would result from project implementation.

4.10.2 Existing Conditions

Wildlife habitat and corridors are present within the project study area at selected 

locations, as summarized below for each segment.

Segment 1

Three New York state-listed habitat types have been recorded within 250 feet of 

Segment 1: Pine Barren Vernal Ponds, Tidal River (Lower Hudson River), and Pitch 

Pine-Oak Forest. No wildlife corridors were identified within 250 feet of Segment 1.

Segments 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8

No protected wildlife habitat or corridors were identified within 250 feet of 

Segment 2, 3, 6, 7, or 8.

Segment 4

One New York state-listed habitat type has been recorded within 250 feet of 

Segment 4: Floodplain Forest. Two Vermont state-listed natural communities have 

been recorded within 250 feet of Segment 4, both of which are palustrine.14

Segment 9

Two Vermont state-listed natural communities have been recorded within 250 feet of 

Segment 9, both of which are palustrine. Segment 9 is within mapped bear habitat for 

1.63 miles in the Town of Arlington from just south of Old Depot Road to north of 

Putnam Road. No other wildlife corridors were identified within 250 feet of 

Segment 9.

Segment 10

Four state-listed natural communities have been recorded within 250 feet of 

Segment 10, all of which are palustrine. Segment 10 is within several deer wintering 

14 Palustrine means of, pertaining to, or living in a marsh or swamp.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-61 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

areas and several bear habitat areas. Segment 10 is also within 400 feet of Emerald 

Lake, a designated Vermont RINA in Dorset.

4.10.3 Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to wildlife habitat and corridors from the No-Build and the 

Proposed Action Alternatives are described below.

4.10.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not affect protected wildlife habitat.

4.10.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Specific instances of wildlife habitat or corridors within the project study area do not 

necessarily indicate that there would be potential impacts to those resources. 

Locations where additional investigation would be required include road and water 

crossings that would be modified, and new siding construction. Once infrastructure 

improvement locations are specified, additional evaluations, which may include a 

field investigation and agency coordination, would be conducted during the final 

design to determine potential effects on wildlife habitat. Reconstructing existing rail 

infrastructure and adding passenger service (one roundtrip per day) would not 

adversely affect wildlife habitat or wildlife corridors. The project would increase 

train traffic on Segments 7, 8, 9 and 10 by two trains per day (one round trip). This 

would result in a minimal increase in the potential for wildlife mortality.

Segment 1

The potential to impact wildlife habitat or corridors in Segment 1 is negligible 

because no infrastructure improvements are planned for this segment.

Segment 2

The potential to impact wildlife in Segment 2 is negligible because the known habitat 

is not in close proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure improvements in this 

segment would consist of 2 miles of new siding track within the existing ROW. No 

improvements outside the ROW are planned.

Segment 3

The potential to impact wildlife habitat or corridors in Segment 3 is negligible 

because no infrastructure improvements are planned for this segment.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-62 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 4

The potential to impact wildlife habitat or corridors in Segment 4 is negligible 

because no infrastructure improvements are planned for this segment.

Segment 6

The potential to impact wildlife in Segment 6 is negligible because the known habitat 

is not in close proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure improvements in this 

segment would consist of 6 miles of new siding construction within the existing 

ROW. No improvements outside the ROW are planned.

Segment 7

The potential to impact wildlife in Segment 7 is negligible because the known habitat 

is not in close proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure improvements in this 

segment would consist of constructing a second main line track and a new station in 

Mechanicville, all within the existing rail ROW.

Segment 8

The potential to impact wildlife in Segment 8 is negligible because the known habitat 

is not in close proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure improvements in this 

segment would consist of main line track upgrades and reconstruction of all bridges 

rated “poor,” all within the existing ROW, and constructing a new station in North 

Bennington near the existing ROW.

Segment 9

Wildlife habitat in Segment 9 may be impacted because the known habitat is in close 

proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure improvements in this segment would 

consist of main line track upgrades, reconstruction of all bridges rated “poor,” and 

constructing a new station in Manchester, all within the existing rail ROW. Increased 

train traffic or track improvements could impact bear movement and result in habitat 

fragmentation; the impacts are expected to be minimal because this segment is an 

active rail corridor. Mitigating these impacts is not necessary.

Segment 10

Wildlife habitat in Segment 10 may be impacted because the known habitat is in close 

proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure upgrades in this segment would consist of 

main line track upgrades within the existing ROW. No improvements outside the ROW 

are planned. Increased train traffic or track improvements could impact deer and bear 

movement and result in habitat fragmentation; the impacts are expected to be minimal 

because this segment is an active rail corridor. Mitigating these impacts is not necessary. 

Increased rail traffic would not impact Emerald Lake because of Segment 10’s distance 

from this Vermont RINA and current use as an active rail corridor.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-63 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.10.3.3 Summary

Wildlife habitat is known to occur within 250 feet of Segments 1, 9, and 10 within the 

project study area, and wildlife corridors were identified along Segments 3, 4, 9,

and 10. One Vermont RINA, Emerald Lake, was identified near Segment 10. The 

wildlife habitat and corridors, and the Vermont RINA, may be impacted if work is 

required outside the existing rail footprint to modify existing or construct new tracks

or stream or road crossings. These areas are unlikely to be impacted by any work 

within the existing ROW. A field investigation is recommended where work would 

occur outside the ROW and habitat or corridors are proximate to the ROW, to 

identify any potential impacts and, if necessary, design appropriate impact 

avoidance or minimization measures.

4.11 Threatened and Endangered Species

Threatened or endangered species fall under the jurisdiction of state and federal 

agencies and are known or likely to be present in proximity to the segments 

comprising the project study area. At the federal level, the USFWS and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for protecting terrestrial plants and 

animals, and marine animals, respectively, under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act. These agencies may list species as “threatened” or “endangered” and, if 

warranted, designate critical habitat for listed species. Listed species and designated 

critical habitat are legally protected from harm by activities undertaken, authorized, 

or funded by federal agencies. Species protected by state law are managed by the 

New York NHP and the Vermont NNHP.

Recorded federal- or state- listed species and their habitat near segments comprising 

the Proposed Action Alternative would need to be confirmed with the USFWS or 

NMFS and the NYNHP or NNHP (as appropriate) during final design to determine 

if listed species or designated critical habitat are actually present within the rail 

corridor and would be affected by the project. If present, coordination with the 

agencies will be required to identify potential impacts and appropriate avoidance 

measures.

This section describes the potential presence of protected species and their habitat 

along each segment; the potential impacts of the alternatives; and recommendations 

for minimizing any potential impacts.

4.11.1 Methodology

The assessment of protected species and habitat included:

 Reviewing USFWS and NMFS online protected species information;

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-64 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Reviewing NNHP Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species & Significant 

Communities GIS data (2010) , identifying Vermont state-protected species;

 Reviewing NYNHP’s Biodiversity Database GIS data (2011), identifying 

New York state-protected species;

 Reviewing records of federal- and state-listed species and their habitat within 

250 feet of the rail corridor; and

 Evaluating potential impacts to the listed species and their habitat found within 

the project study area that would result from project implementation.

4.11.2 Existing Conditions

A number of listed species and their habitat are present within the project study area.

The federally listed species that have been recorded within the project study area are:

 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is listed by the USFWS as an endangered species. 

Although the Indiana bat has been recorded in Northeastern states, its primary 

range is in the Midwest.15

 Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) is listed by the USFWS as an 

endangered species. This small butterfly is widespread in Wisconsin and can be 

found in other states including New York.16

 Bog turtle (Clemmys (Glyptemys) muhlenbergii) is listed by the USFWS as 

threatened. One of the smallest turtles in the world, this species is known to 

occur in Northeastern states including New York.17

 Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is listed by NMFS as endangered. 

This anadromous fish occurs in most major river systems along the eastern 

seaboard, including New York.18

 Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is listed by the USFWS as threatened. 

This rare orchid is widely distributed but rare in eastern states and Canada, and 

has been extirpated from New York and Vermont.19

State records of protected species do not provide species-specific information at this 

level of inquiry; a distinction is only made between records of plant and animal 

species. Further investigation would be required at a later stage of the project.

Segment 1

Four Federally protected wildlife species (bog turtle, Indiana bat, Karner blue 

butterfly, and shortnose sturgeon) have been recorded within 250 feet of Segment 1. 

15 USFWS. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Fact Sheet. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/indianabat.fs.pdf

16 USFWS. Karner Blue Butterfly Fact Sheet. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/kbb_fact.html

17 USFWS. Species Profile: Bog Turtle (Clemmys (Glyptemys) muhlenbergii). 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048

18 NMFS. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm

19 USFWS. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Fact Sheet.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/plants/smallwhorledpogoniafs.html

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-65 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 2

Two federally protected species (Indiana bat and Karner blue butterfly) have been 

recorded within 250 feet of Segment 2.

Segment 3

Three federally protected species (Indiana bat, Karner blue butterfly, and small 

whorled pogonia) have been recorded within 250 feet of Segment 3.

Segment 4

Two federally protected species (Indiana bat and small whorled pogonia) have been 

recorded within 250 feet of Segment 4.

Segment 6

Two federally listed species (Indiana bat and Karner blue butterfly) have been 

recorded within 250 feet of Segment 6.

Segment 7

Three federally listed species (Indiana bat, Karner blue butterfly, and shortnose 

sturgeon) have been recorded within 250 feet of Segment 7.

Segment 8

Two federally listed species (Indiana bat and shortnose sturgeon) have been recorded 

within 250 feet of Segment 8.

Segment 9

One federally listed species (Indiana bat) and eleven state-listed species (six 

unspecified plants and five unspecified animals) have been recorded within 250 feet 

of Segment 9.

Segment 10

One federally listed species (Indiana bat) and thirteen state-listed species (ten 

unspecified plants and three unspecified animals) have been recorded within 250 feet 

of Segment 10.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-66 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.11.3 Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species from the No-Build and the 

Proposed Action Alternatives are described below.

4.11.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not affect protected species or their habitat.

4.11.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Specific instances of the listed species and their habitat found within the project

study area do not necessarily indicate that there would be potential impacts to those 

resources. However, proximity to the rail segments where work would occur outside 

the ROW does indicate that further coordination with the state and federal agencies 

will be needed to evaluate and minimize any potential impacts from the Proposed 

Action Alternative.

Segment 1

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 1 is negligible 

because no infrastructure improvements are planned for this segment.

Segment 2

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 2 is negligible 

because the species are not known to be within the rail ROW. Infrastructure 

improvements in this segment would consist of 2 miles of new siding track within 

the existing ROW. No improvements outside the ROW are planned.

Segment 3

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 3 is negligible 

because no infrastructure improvements are planned for this segment.

Segment 4

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 4 is negligible 

because no infrastructure improvements are planned for this segment.

Segment 6

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 6 is negligible

because the species are not known to be within the rail ROW. Infrastructure 

improvements in this segment would consist of 6 miles of new siding construction 

within the existing ROW. No improvements outside the ROW are planned.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-67 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 7

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 7 is negligible

because the species are not known to be within the rail ROW. Infrastructure 

improvements in this segment would consist of constructing a second main line track 

within the existing rail ROW. A new station in Mechanicville may include elements 

(e.g., parking lot) outside of the ROW but distant from known protected species 

locations or habitat.

Segment 8

The potential to impact threatened or endangered species in Segment 8 is negligible

because the species are not known to be within the rail ROW. Infrastructure 

improvements in this segment would consist of main line track upgrades and 

reconstruction of all bridges rated “poor,” all within the existing ROW. A new station 

in North Bennington may include elements (e.g., parking lot) outside of the ROW but 

distant from known protected species locations or habitat.

Segment 9

Threatened or endangered species in Segment 9 may be impacted because the species 

are known to be in close proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure improvements in 

this segment would consist of main line track upgrades, reconstruction of all bridges 

rated “poor,” all within the existing rail ROW. A new station in Manchester may 

include elements (e.g., parking lot) outside of the ROW but distant from known 

protected species locations or habitat.

Segment 10

Threatened or endangered species in Segment 10 may be impacted because the 

species are in close proximity to the rail ROW. Infrastructure upgrades in this 

segment would consist of main line track upgrades within the existing ROW. No 

improvements outside the ROW are planned.

4.11.3.3 Summary

Federal- or state-protected species and habitat have been recorded within 250 feet of 

each segment within the project study area. Threatened or endangered species, or 

their habitat, are unlikely to be impacted by any work within the existing ROW for 

all segments. Work outside of the ROW would not occur in habitats likely to contain 

listed species.

One federally listed species (Indiana bat) and thirteen state-listed species (ten 

unspecified plants and three unspecified animals) have been recorded near the rail 

bed in Segment 10. Coordination with the Vermont NNHP to confirm the protected

species type and habitat requirements is required. A field investigation may be 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-68 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

conducted during preliminary or final design to identify any potential impacts and, if 

necessary, design appropriate impact avoidance or minimization measures.

During the next phase of the project, records of federal- or state- listed species and 

their habitat along each segment of the Proposed Action Alternative would be 

confirmed with the USFWS or NMFS and the NYNHP or VTNHP to determine if 

listed species or designated critical habitat are actually present within the rail 

corridor. If present, coordination with the agencies will be required to identify 

potential impacts and appropriate avoidance measures.

4.12 Land Use

Land uses and levels of development are considered with regard to proximity to 

project rail infrastructure and potential sensitivity to related construction and 

operations activities. Land use conditions may be affected directly (e.g., locally) or 

indirectly (e.g., regionally) by the project. Typically, the potential for direct effects on 

land uses within and near a project area comprised of existing rail is limited to 

instances where planned capital improvements (e.g., rail yards and service facilities, 

new rail stations or expansions) may extend beyond the limits of the existing rail 

ROW and also result in a change in land use. Indirect effects of the project are 

separately discussed in Section 4.21, Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts.

A general review of local and regional land use and development conditions is 

provided in this section. Local conditions are reviewed in areas where activities are 

anticipated to occur outside the existing rail ROW. Regional conditions are described 

as a means of providing context to the project and to inform the assessment of 

potential indirect and cumulative effects.

4.12.1 Methodology

Land use types are defined broadly throughout the project study area to ensure relative 

consistency and according to available land use data. Relative locations and sizes of 

urbanized areas are summarized for the region as a whole, and major unique land uses 

or facilities (such as regional airports) are identified as landmarks of regional context and 

to inform the general characterization of the project study area overall.

Local consideration of land use information is also provided for the areas of North 

Bennington and Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY. Additional characterization 

is provided of land uses in the vicinity of Segment 8, which links Hoosick Junction to 

the North Bennington (VT) Station and Segment 7, which links Mechanicville to 

Hoosick Junction, NY.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-69 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Data utilized were the National Land Cover Data Set originated by the 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, a partnership of nine federal 

agencies, led by the US Geological Survey.20 The data product is a 2006 GeoTIFF 

image; the land cover data sets are single band raster images. The assessment does 

not include calculation of land use types. Land coverage for “developed” areas is 

characterized primarily according to development intensity:

 High Intensity: Includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in 

high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and 

commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 to 100 percent of the 

total cover.

 Medium Intensity: Includes areas with a mixture of structures and vegetation. 

These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Impervious 

surfaces account for 50 to 79 percent of the total cover.

 Low Intensity: Includes areas with a mixture of structures and vegetation. These 

areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Impervious surfaces 

account for 20 to 49 percent of total cover.

 Open Space: Includes areas with a mixture of some structures, but mostly 

vegetation in the form of landscaped areas such as lawns. These areas most 

commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parts, golf courses, and 

vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or 

aesthetic purposes. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total 

cover.

Supplemental information is available from the US Census (2010 and 2000), such as 

land area and persons per square mile, was also reviewed.

This analysis assumes that the No-Build Alternative projects (currently programmed and 

funded improvements to the existing infrastructure, which include the addition of a 

fourth track at Albany/Rensselaer Station and new double-track near Saratoga 

Springs, NY) are intended to improve operations to meet existing and projected demand. 

Thus, the future conditions without the project would largely resemble existing 

conditions, with no substantial changes in development patterns or trends in community 

planning and public policy. Local planning projects that may be considered by 

municipalities throughout the bi-state region would not substantially alter the character 

of the human environment throughout the project study area, and so future conditions 

without the project are anticipated generally to resemble existing conditions.

4.12.2 Existing Conditions

The existing land uses near each station location and within the region are discussed 

in the following sections. The potential to affect land uses directly by physical 

alteration of the human environment is limited to the areas outside the existing rail 

20 MRLC Consortium, U.S. Geological Survey. National Land Cover Data Set. 2006.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-70 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

ROW where parking lots would be constructed to serve the three new stations: 

Manchester and North Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY.

4.12.2.1 Mechanicville, NY

Cities in New York potentially served by a new station in Mechanicville range in 

population density from under 3,000 to over 6,000 persons per square mile. The 

2010 Census reports that Mechanicville has a total land area of 0.8 square miles, and 

a population density of approximately 6,178 persons per square mile. Nearby Capital 

District cities have greater land area and lower population densities, listed in order of 

largest to smallest total land area, are:

 Albany (21.4 square miles and about 4,575 persons per square mile);

 Schenectady (10.8 square miles and about 6,136 persons per square mile); 

 Troy (10.4 square miles and about 4,840 persons per square mile); and 

 Rensselaer (3.2 square miles and about 2,961 persons per square mile).

4.12.2.2 Bennington, VT

Bennington, VT covers 4.8 square miles and has about 1,890 persons per square mile, 

while North Bennington covers 1.90 square miles and has about 763 persons per 

square mile. Development in these areas is generally low intensity, with some 

medium intensity in geographic centers, along with a few small spots of high 

intensity. Development patterns in these areas generally reflect the presence of 

Bennington and Southern Vermont colleges.

4.12.2.3 Manchester, VT

Manchester Center covers 4.5 square miles and has about 456 persons per square 

mile. Development in this area is generally low intensity, with some medium 

intensity in the geographic centers, along with a few small spots of high intensity.

4.12.2.4 Region

Urbanized areas throughout the project study area include:

 New York State Capital District (comprising the cities of Albany, Rensselaer, 

Troy, and Schenectady);

 Saratoga Springs and Glens Falls, NY, with a small urbanized area at Fort 

Edward (roughly equivalent in physical size);

 Small urbanized areas of Whitehall, NY and Castleton, VT;

 Rutland, VT, with a small urbanized area near West Rutland;

 Bennington, VT, with a small urbanized area near North Bennington Village;

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-71 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Fair Haven, VT; and

 Hoosick Falls, NY.

Existing passenger service stations serve the Capital District, Saratoga Springs, and 

Glens Falls, NY and Rutland, VT.

The New York portion of the project study area is part of a generally developed 

(mostly low intensity) area that extends north and south along the eastern New York 

border, generally following the Adirondack and Ethan Allen service lines along the 

Hudson River. A similar low-intensity development pattern extends west from the 

Capital District along the southern edge of the Adirondacks, generally following the 

route of the Erie Canal and I-90. The high-intensity development is located within the 

urbanized areas, generally surrounded by a succession of medium and lower 

intensity development.

4.12.3 Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to land use are described below.

4.12.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no effects on land use.

4.12.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

There would be no change to land use along the alignment of the Proposed Action 

Alternative, as all infrastructure improvements would be made within the rail ROW.

Land use in the vicinity of the new stations could change if property acquired for 

new parking lots is outside of the rail ROW and the acquired property is currently 

used for some purpose other than parking. The planned parking lots are small, 

comprised of 50 spaces each, and each may require approximately 20,000 square feet 

(less than 1⁄2 acre) of land acquisition. Detailed consideration of land use and 

development potential in the vicinity of the proposed new stations may be prepared 

as part of future Project Level analyses of the stations.

4.12.3.3 Summary

Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the Proposed Action Alternative would directly 

affect land use, except for potential land use changes at the proposed new stations. 

Small parking lots are planned for the three new stations; it is likely that the parking 

lots would be located outside of the existing rail ROW, requiring property 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-72 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

acquisition. Detailed consideration of land use in the vicinity of the proposed new 

stations may be prepared as part of future Project Level analyses

4.13 Socio-Economic Environment

This socioeconomics assessment is aimed at identifying social and economic 

components of the communities and region, and identifies potential sensitivities to 

the types of effects associated with rail service and improvement projects. Potential 

direct effects may occur at a relatively discrete local level (e.g., the area that may be 

altered physically by a project). Potential indirect effects may be experienced locally 

near stations where existing direct service would be changed or where new direct 

service would be accessed, or across a region.

4.13.1 Methodology

The most current socioeconomic data sets available at levels comparable among 

counties, cities, places and states are summarized in US Census “Quickfacts,” which 

are data summary reports prepared by the US Census Bureau to include population, 

demographics, housing, income, employment and business activity data.21

Quickfacts data were collected in November 2011 and reviewed for the counties that 

would be directly served by the project and also for the cities of Albany, Rensselaer, 

Schenectady, Troy, and Mechanicville, NY, as well as Bennington, VT. The most 

current and comparable data for Manchester and North Bennington, VT are 

2000 Census population and demographic data. These data are summarized below 

and used to characterize the socioeconomic conditions of the seven-county regional 

area as well as station areas that would be serviced by the project.

4.13.2 Existing Conditions 

The socioeconomic conditions near one rail segment, new station locations, and the 

region each discussed in turn in the following sections. The potential to affect 

socioeconomic conditions directly by physical alteration of the human environment 

(e.g., land use patterns) is limited to the areas where parking lots would be 

constructed to serve the three new stations: Manchester and North Bennington, VT

and Mechanicville, NY.

4.13.2.1 Population and Employment

21 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census Quickfacts. Last updated October 18, 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov Date 

accessed November 1, 2011.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-73 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-16 shows summary information for the counties in the project study area 

including: population, land area, and population density. Median housing values, 

household income and total employment are also provided.

Table 4-16 Population and Employment by Project Study Area County

County

Total 

Population

Persons under 

18 yrs and 

over 65 yrs

Land Area

(square miles)

Population Density

(population/

square mile)

Median 

Housing 

Values Employment1

Median 

Household 

Income

New York State

Schenectady 152,169 38.4% 206 711 $94,500 52,667 $53,404

Saratoga 220,069 35.1% 812 247 $120,400 62,863 $63,883

Washington 62,753 36.0% 835 73 $77,400 9,967 $46,702

Rensselaer 155,541 35.0% 654 233 $102,900 42,058 $54,437

Albany 298,284 33.8% 523 563 $116,300 173,998 $59,245

Vermont State

Rutland 63,014 35.9% 933 68 $96,000 26,620 $47,147

Bennington 36,411 39.2% 676 55 $115,700 15,887 $45,029

Project Study Area Total 988,241 36.2% 

(Avg.)

4,639 279

(Avg.)

$103,314

(Avg.)

384,060 $52,835

(Avg.)

Sources: Data from US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/news.html) viewed on March, 2011.

Data base years: Total Population (2009), Land Area (2000), Population Density (2000), Median Housing Values (2000), Median Household Income (2000), 

Employment (2008).

1 Private Non-Farm Employment

4.13.2.2 Travel Behavior

According to the data from the US Census Minor Civil Division (MCD) Journey to 

Work Tables,22 a majority of Vermont residents in the project study area (i.e., the 

Counties of Bennington and Rutland) are employed within their resident county 

(approximately 85 percent). Residents of Albany, NY also showed a high 

employment rate within their own county (83 percent). In the remaining New York 

counties, roughly 50 percent of residents in the project study area are employed 

outside their resident county, showing strong needs for regional transportation 

services. Among those people that are employed outside their counties of residency, 

the most popular employment center is Albany, NY.

4.13.2.3 Stations

Preliminary locations for the new stations have been identified for the purposes of 

this evaluation and specific layouts will be determined in future phases of the 

project; it is not possible to accurately characterize existing conditions or potential 

impacts. Proposed station parking areas may be located outside the ROW and 

22 U.S. Census 2000 Minor Civil Division (MCD) County-To-County Worker Flow Files. Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-74 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

require land acquisition. A direct effect to socioeconomic conditions could result if 

these changes in land use resulted in property acquisition and relocation, related to 

businesses, or community disruption. It is anticipated that the introduction of the 

relatively small (approximately 50 spaces) parking areas could be accommodated 

without relocation of unique businesses or substantial community disruption, and 

therefore would have no significant direct effect on local socioeconomic conditions in 

Manchester and North Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY. Based on 

US Census 2010 and 2000 data, the socioeconomic conditions of the region and 

potential impacts from the project are summarized below.

Population

A total of 99,425 people lived in the two Vermont counties in 2010, while 

888,816 people lived in the five New York counties. The total 2010 population for the 

seven-county study area was 988,241, approximately 90 percent living in New York 

counties. The populations in each of the New York counties and cities reviewed grew 

between 2000 and 2010, while the Vermont counties and cities generally lost 

population. In the Vermont portion of the project study area, only Bennington 

County grew (by less than 1 percent), while Rutland County, Bennington, and 

Rutland City declined substantially.

Demographics

As of 2010, the populations were predominantly white in all five New York counties 

reviewed, with county and city populations less diverse than for the state overall. 

The proportions of total population that were black or of Hispanic or Latino origin 

were lower in all counties than the state, and lower in Mechanicville. Albany, 

Schenectady, and Troy, NY had larger percentages of black population than their 

respective counties or the state overall. Saratoga and Washington counties were the 

least diverse of the five New York counties that would be served by the project. 

Vermont counties, however, were the least diverse of the seven counties in the 

project study area, with populations about 97 percent white, with less than 2 percent 

each of black, Asian, Hispanic, or Latino origin.

Housing and Income

Rates of home ownership were higher in all five New York counties than in the state

overall. Vermont’s Bennington and Rutland Counties home ownership rates were

than New York’s Albany, Rensselaer and Schenectady Counties, though slightly 

lower than Saratoga and Washington Counties. Median home values of homes in the 

five New York counties were lower than in the state. Similarly, median home values 

in the two Vermont counties were lower than the respective statewide median.

Per capita incomes were lower in the New York cities reviewed than in the counties and 

New York state overall. In Vermont, per capita incomes were also lower in the cities than 

the counties and, except for Bennington County, lower than the state median per capita 

money income. Median household income was higher in all New York counties than the 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-75 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

state, except for Washington County, but lower in all New York cities than the respective 

counties. In contrast, median household income was lower in both Vermont counties 

than in the state (and also lower than median incomes in New York).

Generally, the five New York counties had lower percentages of total population 

living in poverty than the state overall. Rates of poverty were higher in the Vermont 

counties and cities than in the state overall. Though higher than New York counties, 

the poverty rates in Vermont were notably lower than the cities of Albany, 

Rensselaer, and Schenectady, NY.

County-Level Employment

Non-farm employment increased in New York’s Albany, Schenectady, and Saratoga 

Counties, but declined in Rensselaer County and Washington County. The rate of job 

loss (nonfarm employment declines) in Vermont’s Rutland and Bennington Counties, 

however, outpaced declines in Rensselaer and Washington Counties.

Education

Several colleges and universities are located within or near these urban areas. Within 

the Capital District are the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany, 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Siena College and Union College. SUNY Empire 

State College and Skidmore College are located within Saratoga Springs, and 

Adirondack Community College is located in Glens Falls. All these schools are 

located in urban areas served by the Adirondack and Ethan Allen service lines. In 

Vermont, Southern Vermont College and Bennington College are both located in 

Bennington and served by the Vermont Railway, with service north to Rutland.

Business Activity

Albany County had the most firms in 2007, compared to the other six counties that 

would be directly served by the project. Firms in the five New York counties were 

not concentrated in the major cities. Albany and Saratoga Counties achieved higher 

sales numbers than the other New York counties in the project study area. In 

Vermont, Bennington County had fewer firms than all other counties, and Rutland 

County had fewer firms than all other counties except Bennington and Washington. 

The Vermont counties generally had lower total sales numbers than the New York 

counties, but per capita retail sales were relatively higher in Vermont.

4.13.3 Environmental Consequences

The potential impacts to socioeconomic resources from the No-Build and the 

Proposed Action Alternatives are described below.

4.13.3.1 No-Build Alternative

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-76 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

The No-Build Alternative would have no adverse or beneficial effects on social or 

economic resources.

4.13.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative is consistent with Bennington and Rutland 

Counties’ regional planning policies aimed at achieving economic growth. 

Specifically, Rutland County’s Rutland Regional Plan cites “infrastructure gaps” as 

unmet needs to be addressed. A main issue associated with economic activity is to 

upgrade and expand railway services, in addition to airport services, as a means of 

supporting ongoing economic growth.23 This policy is a continuation of the policy 

promoting rail network improvements outlined in the Rutland Region Economic 

Development Strategy.24

Though the Bennington County Regional Plan does not cite the importance of 

improving rail service as a means of achieving economic development, it does state 

the importance of the region’s ability to provide the critical infrastructure and 

amenities that will support businesses.25 The 2008 Bennington County Regional 

Transportation Plan Update, however, closely relates to the project and includes 

reference to a 1998 Position Statement that “...it is both feasible and appropriate to 

undertake the improvements necessary to restore effective passenger and freight rail 

service to the region” and reference to 2006 Vermont State Rail and Policy Plan Goals, 

including “Foster economic development and benefit local industry.”26 The 

Bennington County Regional Transportation Plan Update also specifically indicates that 

stops Manchester and North Bennington are considered “ideal” in the provision of 

passenger service to the Bennington region. The project is anticipated to support 

these regional policies concerning socioeconomic conditions.

The project is intended, in part, to promote socioeconomic development within the 

project study area. This support, however, would not result in direct impacts to the 

socioeconomic environment. The indirect effects to the socioeconomic environment 

are described in Section 4.21, Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts.

Some temporary direct impacts would result from constructing the project, 

specifically related to infrastructure improvements along the rail lines and three new 

stations. These impacts would be realized in the form of jobs for local or imported 

workers, and resultant economic activity in local communities. This would be a 

temporary effect for the construction period only and is not likely to substantively 

affect the local or regional economy.

23 Rutland Regional Planning Commission. Rutland Regional Plan (Adopted April 15, 2008). 

24 Rutland Region Economic Development Strategy (Draft, July 2006). Effort funded in part by the Municipal Planning 

Grant Program and the Vermont Community Development Program administered by the Vermont Department of 

Housing and Community Affairs, Agency of Commerce & Community Development.

25 Bennington County Regional Commission. The Regional Plan, Bennington, Vermont (Adopted May 17, 2007).

26 Bennington County Regional Commission. Bennington County Regional Transportation Plan Update (Fall 2008).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-77 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.13.3.3 Summary

No significant and adverse impacts to socioeconomic conditions are expected to 

result from the project. It is anticipated that the scale or types of properties acquired 

or businesses potentially relocated would not amount to a significant impact to 

socioeconomic conditions. On a regional level, the project would be expected to 

support regional planning initiatives, particularly the clearly defined goals outlined 

by the Rutland Regional Planning Commission with regard to enhancement of rail 

service throughout the region as a means of supporting economic development.

4.14 Environmental Justice

The Environmental Justice (EJ) assessment identifies the locations of EJ communities 

along each segment and within the region, and support efforts to conform to Executive 

Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994; 59 FR 32) and US Department of 

Transportation policy to ensure nondiscrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964. Title VI states that “no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, 

color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.” This effort at nondiscrimination is known as Environmental Justice.

EJ communities are those areas where minority or low-income populations exist in 

concentrations that are substantially greater than the associated planning region. 

EJ communities may be affected directly (locally) or indirectly (regionally) by rail 

service and improvement projects. Minority and low-income populations are defined 

by the US Census Bureau, and Census Tracts occupied by certain threshold 

percentages of these populations are used to identify EJ communities.

Potential direct impacts to EJ communities comprise significant adverse impacts 

determined in other analyses, which for rail projects are typically related to noise, 

land acquisition, and community cohesion. These analyses, if appropriate, would be 

conducted as part of future Project Level evaluations. These analyses may reveal 

potential significant adverse impacts, and would evaluate whether such impacts 

constitute a disproportionate and adverse impact to EJ communities.

The extent to which EJ communities would be expected to share in project benefits is 

also a concern of this assessment. Conducted primarily at a regional level, it is closely 

tied to the evaluation of socioeconomic conditions (Section 4.13, Socio-Economic 

Environment). Regional effects to EJ communities would be indirect (for example, 

benefits would be the result of access to service).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-78 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.14.1 Methodology

For the purposes of this EA, potentially impacted EJ communities are identified at the 

Census Tract level, using the most currently available US Census data (2010 for 

minority data and 2000 for poverty data). Census Tracts are the smallest level at which 

both poverty and minority data are typically available for comparison among multiple 

scales of geographic regions (e.g., state, county, town, village, non-incorporated 

“places” that “resemble incorporated places,” etc.). Poverty data and race and ethnicity 

data (e.g., minority races and ethnicities) are the subject of the analysis.

These data are collected for all Census Tracts intersecting or adjacent to the ROW for 

each of the ten segments, extending to within 1,000 feet of the existing stations, and 

within the towns in which the new stations are proposed. In this way, EJ communities 

potentially affected directly by significant adverse impacts to the physical environment 

(such as noise) are identified for the entire project corridor.

In addition, EJ communities identified independently by the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Office of Environmental 

Justice (using 2000 Census data) are reviewed for the five New York counties in the 

project study area and EJ communities identified by the EPA (also using 2000 Census 

data) are reviewed for the two Vermont counties in the project study area. These 

supplemental data sources identify communities within the project study area and 

verify that no identifiable EJ community is overlooked.

4.14.2 Existing Conditions 

The EJ communities near each rail segment and new station location, and within the 

region, each discussed in turn in the following sections.

4.14.2.1 Rail Segments

Nine Census Tracts have been identified as EJ communities within 1,000 feet of two

segments (Table 4-17). Five of these tracts qualify as EJ communities both for having 

concentrations of minority population and persons living in poverty; three qualify 

for poverty status (not minority) and one qualifies for minority (not poverty) status. 

The EJ Census Tracts within 1,000 feet of the rail ROW are located in the Capital 

District region and are present only along Segments 1 and 2 in Albany and 

Schenectady Counties in New York. There are no EJ populations adjacent to or 

within the rail ROW in communities served in Vermont.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-79 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-17 Environmental Justice Communities

Segment County, State Census Tract Poverty Minority

1 Albany, NY 2 X X

1 Albany, NY 3 X X

1 Albany, NY 7 X X

1 Albany, NY 11 X X

1 Schenectady, NY 211.02 X

1 Schenectady, NY 214 X X

1 Schenectady, NY 215 X

2 Schenectady, NY 202 X

2 Schenectady, NY 203 X

Source: U.S. Census, 2000 for poverty status; 2010 for minority status

A concentration of EJ communities is present in the New York State Capital District. 

EJ communities in Albany County, NY are primarily located within the City of 

Albany limits, extending from much of the Hudson River waterfront westward to 

include a large portion of the city. These EJ communities are served by the existing 

Albany/Rensselaer Station.

Similarly, the greatest concentration in Schenectady County, NY is located in 

Schenectady, primarily comprising the physical heart of the city. An additional EJ 

community area is located directly northwest in Glenville, NY. These EJ communities 

are served by the existing Schenectady Station.

In Rensselaer County, NY, the NYSDEP data reveal EJ communities (in addition to 

those in Cohoes) south along the Hudson River waterfront and also to the east. 

Several EJ communities are located within Troy and one is in Rensselaer. Rensselaer 

is served by an existing station, which is currently the station nearest Troy; bus 

service connects Troy to the existing Albany/Rensselaer Amtrak Station.

Saratoga County, NY contains no EJ communities, according to NYSDEC data, and 

the only EJ community in Washington County is within Fort Ann, just south of the 

existing Whitehall Station, though not contiguous to it.

The EPA data indicates that several potential EJ communities may be located along 

the northern border of Vermont, generally 30 miles or more east of the existing 

Vermont Railway service line. Nearer the project study area, a potential EJ 

community is indicated along the northern border of Rutland County. Additional 

potential EJ communities are indicated in Woodford; and just to north in 

Glastenbury; and much farther east (10 miles) in Searsburg. These areas could be 

served by the proposed North Bennington Station.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-80 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 1

Census tracts qualifying as EJ communities are present in Albany and Schenectady, NY 

near the southern and northwestern ends, respectively, of Segment 1. Of the seven 

tracts qualifying as EJ populations, five qualify for both minority and poverty status,

one for poverty status alone, and one for minority status alone.

Segment 2

Census tracts qualifying as EJ communities are present in Schenectady, NY near the 

southern end of Segment 2. Of the two tracts qualifying as EJ populations in 

Segment 2, both qualify for poverty status alone.

4.14.3 Environmental Consequences

Disproportionate adverse impacts to EJ communities in the region are not expected 

from the project, as the additional passenger service on active freight and passenger 

rail lines would not directly affect these communities. The EJ communities in each 

county are expected to benefit from the project as a result of increased access to 

goods, services, and jobs; these indirect impacts are described below.

The types of benefits that EJ communities may experience would be improved public 

transportation access to employment, goods, or services within the region 

(e.g., within the Capital District or possibly Saratoga County, NY), or outside the 

region, potentially the New York City metropolitan region. An alternative 

commuting mode within the Capital District (Segment 6 through Mechanicville, NY) 

could be a potential benefit. Most EJ communities identified in this preliminary 

analysis are concentrated around existing stations, and so providing a new station in 

Mechanicville would be of no significant benefit.

The new station proposed in Manchester, VT is least likely of the three proposed 

stations to provide a benefit to EJ communities, as no EJ communities are located 

nearby. However, the proposed North Bennington Station may be of benefit to EJ 

communities identified in the nearby towns of Woodford, Glastenbury, and 

Searsburg, VT. The potential value to nearby EJ communities of a North Bennington 

Station may be new rail access to the Capital District.

4.14.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no adverse or beneficial effects on EJ 

communities.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-81 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.14.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

EJ communities near Segments 1 and 2 may be impacted by changes in noise levels, 

as described in Section 4.5, although impacts are expected to be minimal, neither 

adverse nor disproportionate. No properties would be acquired in this segment, so EJ 

communities would not be displaced nor would community cohesion be affected.

4.14.3.3 Summary

EJ communities were identified adjacent to the rail ROW in Segments 1 and 2. No EJ 

communities are located near the proposed new stations. Additional EJ communities 

are present in the counties comprising the project study area, but not proximate to 

the rail corridors.

Based on the current level of project design, no direct adverse effects to EJ 

communities are anticipated. Future Project Level evaluations would be conducted 

for all segments, particularly with regard to potential effects on the physical 

environment (such as noise), and potential effects associated with acquisition and 

relocation, and community cohesion, and potential temporary or construction-related 

effects. In addition, 2010 poverty data may be available at the Census Tract level 

when Project Level evaluations of the new stations are performed, allowing this 

inventory of identified EJ communities to be updated. The Project Level efforts 

should include an appropriate public outreach component. Should impacts be 

identified, particularly impacts associated with changes to the physical environment 

(e.g., air quality and noise), it is anticipated that they would be avoided or otherwise 

mitigated where practicable, thus eliminating the potential for disproportionate 

direct impacts to EJ communities.

4.15 Public Health and Safety

This section describes public health and safety issues associated with the proposed 

change in passenger rail service. Passenger and freight rail service has the highest 

potential to impact public health and safety where the track crosses roads at grade 

(rather than grade-separated crossings; e.g., bridges). At-grade crossing control is 

provided by gates, lights, and bells to prevent crossing the tracks or warn the public 

of an arriving train. These features reduce the risk of car/train crashes.

4.15.1 Methodology

Potential impacts to public health and safety were evaluated by reviewing existing 

rail line at-grade crossings, train speeds, and track classifications as compared to the 

proposed conditions.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-82 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.15.2 Existing Conditions

The existing rail lines cross numerous roadways with various forms of at-grade 

crossing control such as automatic warning devices, as described in Section 4.3, 

Transportation. The number of at-grade crossings and current train speed limits are

summarized in Table 4-18.

4.15.3 Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to public health and safety that may result from the No-Build

Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative are described below.

No-Build Alternative

There would be no change in passenger or freight train service under the No-Build

Alternative, and public health and safety would not be affected.

Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the tracks in Segments 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 would 

be upgraded to FRA Class 3 at a minimum, such that an operating speed of up to 59 mph 

is feasible where geometry and operating rules allow, as shown in Table 4-18. There 

would be no changes to tracks in Segments 1, 3, or 4, as these meet project criteria. There 

would be no new at-grade crossings. No closures of at-grade crossings are planned; the 

crossings would be upgraded where necessary to meet applicable FRA standards. 

Although train speeds may be increased by the upgraded tracks, the grade crossing 

improvements are expected to maintain or improve public health and safety along these 

rail lines by reducing the potential for car/train crashes.

The three proposed new stations (Manchester and North Bennington, VT and

Mechanicville, NY) would be designed to ADA standards and include safety features 

to protect the public from automobile traffic and unauthorized access to the tracks.

On a national level, comparing miles traveled via commercial aircraft, trains, and 

automobiles on highways, auto travel on highways has the highest rate of passenger 

fatalities per mile traveled. In 2011, more than 34 percent of all transportation 

fatalities involved occupants of passenger cars, while there were no fatalities related 

to passenger rail27. These statistics indicate that a passenger rail system would 

provide a safer travel option for travelers than passenger cars traveling on area 

highways.

27 USDOT 2012 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/tsar_2012.pdf

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-83 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-18 Summary of At-grade Crossings and Speed Limits

Segment

FRA 

Class

At-grade 

Crossings Existing Train Speed Limits Proposed Train Speed Limits

1 5 3 General:

Passenger: 110 mph

Freight: 50 mph

At Albany/Rensselaer Station:

Passenger: 15 mph

Freight: 10 mph

Through Albany:

Passenger & Freight: 10-25 mph

Approaching Schenectady Station:

From east: 55 mph

From west: 50 mph

At station: 30 mph

Through Schenectady:

Freight: 30 mph

General:

Passenger: 110 mph

Freight: 50 mph

At Albany/Rensselaer Station:

Passenger: 15 mph

Freight: 10 mph

Through Albany:

Passenger & Freight: 10-25 mph

Approaching Schenectady Station:

From east: 55 mph

From west: 50 mph

At station: 30 mph

Through Schenectady:

Freight: 30 mph

2 3 3 General:

Passenger & Freight: 25 mph

Through Kenwood:

Passenger & Freight: 10 mph

General:

Passenger & Freight: 59 mph

Through Kenwood:

Passenger & Freight: 10 mph

3 3 50 General:

Passenger: 60 mph

Freight: 40 mph

Between Hudson River and Fort Edward Station

Passenger: 45 mph

General:

Passenger: 60 mph

Freight: 40 mph

Between Hudson River and Fort Edward Station

Passenger: 45 mph

4 3 40 General:

Passenger: 30-60 mph

Freight: 20-40 mph

Crossing Wood Creek in Whitehall

Passenger: 15 mph

Freight: 10 mph

General:

Passenger: 30-60 mph

Freight: 20-40 mph

Crossing Wood Creek in Whitehall

Passenger: 15 mph

Freight: 10 mph

6 3 8 General:

Passenger & Freight: 40-50 mph

Through Schenectady & Mechanicville:

25 mph

General:

Passenger & Freight: 40/50 mph

Through Schenectady & Mechanicville:

25 mph

7 3 17 General:

Freight: 30-40 mph

Near Mechanicville:

Geometric restrictions: 10 mph

General:

Passenger & Freight: 40 mph

Near Mechanicville:

Geometric restrictions: 10 mph

8 2 11 General:

Freight: 10-30 mph

General:

Passenger & Freight: 59 mph

9 2 37 NA (dark territory) General:

Passenger & Freight: 59 mph

10 2 78 NA (dark territory) General:

Passenger & Freight: 59 mph

Note: “Dark Territory” refers to an unsignalized section of track that is controlled by a train dispatcher.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-84 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.16 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are an important part of the character of a community, and may 

include historic features such as buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts, as 

well as archaeological resources, which are physical remains, usually buried, of past 

activities on a site. Cultural resources in the form of historic properties (which 

include both above-ground and archaeological resources) are the focus of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 USC 470) 

and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 

(49 USC 303). Section 106 of the NHPA states that any project with federal 

involvement (defined as an undertaking) must “take into account the effect of the 

undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register [of Historic Places; the NRHP].”

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act prohibits the use of land from any public park, recreation 

area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic property listed in or eligible for the 

NRHP , unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land. 

Historic properties protected by Section 4(f) are discussed in this section, while the 

recreational properties protected by Section 4(f) are discussed in the next section.

Methodology

Above-ground resources and archaeological sensitivity were identified and 

examined in order to assess potential impacts to historic properties. For aboveground resources, research was undertaken to identify NRHP-listed individual 

properties and districts located within100 feet (50 feet from centerline) of the rail 

corridors. Locations of previously inventoried archaeological sites, and cultural 

features and landscape features from ca. 1900 USGS topographic quadrangle maps, 

were used to provide an overview of potential archaeological sensitivity along the 

rail corridors. As research was conducted through the New York and Vermont State 

Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), methods for compiling necessary data 

differed in each state, depending on the electronic availability of data.

New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic 

Preservation

The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation 

(NYSOPRHP) has some information on NRHP properties available electronically. 

Properties and districts listed in the NRHP have been geocoded by the NYOPRHP. 

This information is available through a public GIS interface on the NYOPRHP 

website, which also has entire copies of the NRHP nomination forms available for 

download. Archaeological sensitivity is also available through the GIS interface, 

shown through generalized geographic areas. The potential for archaeological 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-85 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

sensitivity has been compiled using a combination of known sites and cultural and 

landscape features commonly associated with prehistoric and historic period human 

activity. Using generalized areas to present archaeological sensitivity provides a 

certain degree of guidance, without compromising the confidentiality and security of 

the location of archaeological sites.

Due to the extensive project area, the NYSOPRHP staff prepared GIS data results 

directly related to the project study area. Staff provided an ESRI shapefile on 

November 7, 2011, showing locations of NRHP-listed or nominated properties and 

archaeological sensitivity within 100 feet of all rail corridors. These results are 

summarized by segment in Section 4.16.2, Existing Conditions.

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation

The Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VT DHP) keeps all of their records 

in hard copy format, which is accessible in their office in Montpelier, VT. A site file 

search at the VT DHP office was conducted on November 1, 2011 to identify 

properties and districts listed in the NRHP and assess archaeological sensitivity. 

NRHP nomination forms are filed by municipality, and the maps in each form were 

used to determine the relationship of each property to the location of the project 

study area. In order to assess potential archaeological sensitivity for segment 

locations in Vermont, archaeological maps available at the VT DHP office were 

consulted for locations of known sites along the rail corridors. These data were 

combined with analysis of known geographical and cultural features in order to 

provide an overview of potential archaeological sensitivity, summarized in the 

discussions for each segment.

The files at the VT DHP office also contain information on NRHP and State Register 

eligibility determinations for a number of properties. When locations of these properties 

could be confirmed as being within or adjacent to the project study area, a summary of 

the determination was included in the discussion for the appropriate segment.

Existing Conditions 

This section presents an overview of the history of the railroad segments within the 

project study area, and the cultural resources in each segment. Listed districts and 

individual properties which are located within 100 feet of the rail corridors are 

summarized by segment. As described in Chapter 3, Alternatives, all anticipated 

project railroad construction would be performed within the existing ROW except for 

the three new stations.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-86 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Overview of Railroad History in the Project 

Study Area

The large railroad companies in New York and Vermont during the 19th and 

20th centuries were very active in the project study area segments, which were attractive 

acquisitions or worthwhile construction investments for these large enterprises.

The Delaware and Hudson Railroad (D&H RR) operated a number of the segments 

in New York during the 19th and 20th centuries, including those currently owned by 

CP Rail. The company began as a canal operator in the early 19th century, but

changed focus in the mid-19th century to pursue the growing railroad business.28

While constructing new railroads, the D&H RR also consolidated a number of 

existing railroads during the 1860s and 1870s by acquisition, mergers, and leases. 

Segment 2 and Segment 3 between Whitehall and Schenectady, NY were acquired at 

this time, as were Segment 5 and Segment 6 between Albany and Schenectady, NY 

through Mechanicville, NY.29 The D&H RR declared bankruptcy in 1988 and was 

acquired by CP Rail in 1991.30

The Vermont Railway Company was prominent in the history of the project railroad 

corridors in Vermont. Segment 9 and Segment 10 between Rutland and 

Bennington, VT were constructed in 1852 as the Western Vermont Railroad, which 

was later renamed the Bennington and Rutland Railroad.31 In 1901, the Rutland 

Railroad took over the lease for the corridor, which was subsequently purchased by 

the state and became part of the Vermont Railway in 1963.32

Segment 4 between Whitehall, NY and Rutland, VT shares a history with both of 

these large railroad operators. The railroad was constructed as the Saratoga and 

Rensselaer Railroad in 1843, and in 1871, the D&H RR signed a perpetual lease for 

the railroad as part of its consolidation campaign.33 In 1965, the Vermont Railway 

acquired the corridor from the D&H RR, which is operated under its Clarendon and 

Pittsford subsidiary.34

Regional railroads have also operated some of the segments, including Segments 1, 7, 

and 8. The Segment 1 corridor between Albany and Schenectady, NY, constructed in 

1831, was one of the state’s first railroads and was originally called the Mohawk and 

Hudson Railroad. In 1853, the corridor was merged with the extensive New York 

28 Dufresne, Marilyn E. Delaware and Hudson Railway. (Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2010), 7-8. http://books.google.com, 

accessed November 2011.

29 Bridge Line Historical Society, “History of the Delaware and Hudson Railroad.” http:// http://bridgeline.org/blhs/history.html, accessed October 2011.

30 Ibid.

31 Vermont Historical Society, “Vermont Railroad Timeline.” http://www.vermonthistory.org, accessed November 2011.

32 Railfan and Railroad Magazine, “Rutland Revival – the Vermont Railway.” http://www.railfan.com, accessed November 2011.

33 Bridge Line Historical Society, “History of the Delaware and Hudson Railroad.” 

34 Rutland Historical Society, “The Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad,” Rutland Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. XI, No. 3, 

Summer 1891. http://rutlandhistory.com, accessed October 2011.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-87 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Central Railroad network.35 The New York Central Railroad operated for more than 

a century, followed by the CSX Railway, which began operating the Segment 1 

corridor during the late 20th century.36

Segment 7 and Segment 8 between Mechanicville, NY and North Bennington, VT 

were originally constructed during the 1850s as part of the Troy and Boston Railroad, 

and became part of the Fitchburg Railroad after the Hoosac Tunnel was opened in 

1876. The Boston and Maine Railroad leased the corridor beginning in 1900.37 In the 

mid-20th century, Segment 8 between Hoosick Junction, NY and Bennington, VT 

became part of the Vermont Railway.38 Guilford Transportation acquired 

Segment 7 between Hoosick Junction and Mechanicville, NY in 1983, and the 

corridor now operates as part of the Pan Am Transportation system.39

Existing Conditions along the Project Corridor

The known existing cultural resources within each segment are described below.

Segment 1

There are two NRHP-listed properties or districts along Segment 1:

 Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District, Albany, NY; and

 Mica Insulator Company, Schenectady, NY.

There is a likelihood of intact historic deposits in undisturbed areas of Albany and 

Schenectady, but prehistoric archaeological sensitivity is considered generally low.

Segment 2

There is one NRHP-listed district along Segment 2: the Union Street Historic District 

in Schenectady, NY. There is some archaeological sensitivity near the Erie Canal and 

Mohawk River due to historic settlement and industrial development along this 

segment. Prehistoric archaeological sensitivity is low.

Segment 3

There are two NRHP-listed properties or districts along Segment 3:

 Fort Edward Delaware & Hudson Train Station, Fort Edward, NY; and

 Champlain Canal, Saratoga and Washington Counties, NY.

35 “Mohawk and Hudson Railroad.” http://oldrailhistory.com, accessed November 2011.

36 New York Central System Historical Society, Inc., “NYC Railroad History.” http://nycshs.blogspot.com, accessed 

November 2011.

37 “Fitchburg Railroad: 1845-1900.” http://www.cyberbee.com, accessed November 2011.

38 Vermont Historical Society, “Vermont Railroad Timeline.” 

39 North Adams Public Library, “Hoosac Tunnel Collection – Historical Notes.” http://www.naplibrary.com, accessed 

November 2011.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-88 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014


New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

There is a low degree of archaeological sensitivity along Segment 3 between Saratoga 

Springs and Fort Edward, NY. There is a higher potential for buried historic or 

prehistoric resources near the Champlain Canal, between Fort Edward and 

Whitehall, and south of Saratoga Springs.

Segment 4

There are three NRHP-listed districts but no individual properties along Segment 4:

 Castleton Village Historic District, Castleton, VT;

 Marble Street Historic District, West Rutland, VT; and

 Rutland Downtown Historic District, Rutland, VT.

There is a moderate degree of archaeological sensitivity along much of Segment 4, 

with a potential for buried historic or prehistoric resources along the Castleton River 

and in the developed areas of Rutland and West Rutland, VT. There is a low degree 

of archaeological sensitivity along the corridor between Whitehall, NY and Fair 

Haven, VT.

Segment 6

There are no NRHP-listed properties or districts along Segment 6. There is a low 

potential for archaeological sensitivity along most of this segment. There is a higher 

potential for buried historic or prehistoric resources near Anthony Kill.

Segment 7

There are two NRHP-listed properties or districts along Segment 7:

 Downtown Cohoes Historic District, Cohoes, NY; and

 Delaware & Hudson Railroad Freight House, Cohoes, NY.

There is a relatively high degree of archaeological sensitivity along the Hoosic River 

in this segment.

Segment 8

There are two NRHP-listed properties along Segment 8:

 Delany Hotel, Hoosick, NY; and

 Bennington Battlefield, Hoosick and White Creek, NY.

Archaeological sensitivity is considered high along this segment.

Segment 9

There are four NRHP-listed properties or districts along Segment 9:

 Amos Lawrence House, Manchester, VT;

 Arlington Village Historic District, Arlington, VT;

 North Bennington Historic District, Bennington, VT; and

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-89 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 North Bennington Depot, Bennington, VT.

There is a moderate level of archaeological sensitivity for buried historic or 

prehistoric deposits along this segment.

Segment 10

There are three NRHP-listed districts along Segment 10:

 Rutland Downtown Historic District, Rutland, VT;

 Wallingford Main Street Historic District; Wallingford, VT; and

 Rural Otter Creek Valley Historic District, Wallingford, VT.

There is a high degree of archaeological sensitivity for buried historic or prehistoric 

deposits along this segment.

Environmental Consequences

The potential impacts to cultural resources from the No-Build and the Proposed 

Action Alternatives are described below.

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no effects on cultural resources.

Proposed Action Alternative

Eighteen individual properties or districts listed in the NRHP are located within or 

adjacent to the project study area (Table 4-19). Ten are Historic Districts, concentrated 

primarily in municipal centers which developed as major depots along the railroad 

lines during the 19th century. Individually listed properties vary considerably, and 

include residential properties, cultural landscapes, municipal buildings, canals, and 

industrial structures. All of the cultural resources known along Segments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 

7, 8, 9, and 10 are outside the ROW, and are therefore unlikely to be impacted by the 

project.

There is a relatively low potential for intact archaeological resources within the 

disturbed railroad ROW. The potential presence of such resources is greater for any 

aspect of the project study area outside of the ROW, including locations where 

stations would be expanded or new passenger platforms and connections 

constructed, and at construction staging areas. Segments located along major 

waterways and historic canals are expected to have a high level of archaeological 

sensitivity associated with prehistoric and historic period activities (Table 4-20).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-90 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

The return of or increase in rail traffic along the corridor, and any associated 

rehabilitation of former railroad depots and stations, is expected to have a net 

positive effect on cultural resources.

The location of the project within existing rail corridors limits the potential to disturb 

underground archaeological resources. As the rail line passes through previously 

disturbed areas that over the years have been periodically reconstructed in some 

locations, potential direct impacts to cultural and archaeological resources will be 

substantially reduced because physical intersection with resources will be largely 

avoided. However, cultural deposits from previous activities associated with these 

resources may be present along rivers and former canal beds that the railroads 

follow. A more extensive assessment of potential impacts to archaeological resources 

will be required once project plans are more fully developed, including components 

such as station improvements, passenger platform construction, and staging areas 

that fall outside of the railroad ROW.

In addition to the NRHP-listed resources identified in Section 4.16.2.2, the 

background research conducted for this service-level analysis indicated there may be 

other NRHP-eligible resources present in the study area, including those previously 

identified by VT DHP or NYSOPRHP. However, no further identification of historic 

properties or evaluations of impacts to historic properties took place at this stage. 

Such activities, as well as any necessary mitigation, would take place in the future 

when detailed design plans have been developed, and would include consultation 

with VT DHP and NYSOPRHP for specific undertakings that could affect historic 

properties. VT DHP and NYSOPRHP were notified of this service-level study by 

letter dated December 2, 2014 (Appendix D).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-91 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-19 Summary of Potential Effects to Above-ground Resources

Segment Location

National Register Property/ 

District Adjacent to Rail Segment

Anticipated 

Adverse Effects 

of Project

1 Albany, NY Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District None Schenectady, NY Mica Insulator Company

2 Schenectady, NY Union Street Historic District None

3 Fort Edward, NY

Saratoga and Washington 

Counties, NY

Fort Edward Delaware & Hudson Train 

Station

Champlain Canal

None

None

4 Castleton, VT

West Rutland, VT

Rutland, VT

Castleton Village Historic District

Marble Street Historic District

Rutland Downtown Historic District

None

None

None

6 N/A N/A None

7 Cohoes, NY Downtown Cohoes Historic District

None Cohoes, NY Delaware & Hudson Railroad Freight House

8 Hoosick, NY Delaney Hotel None

Hoosick and White Creek, NY Bennington Battlefield

9 Manchester, VT Amos Lawrence House

None

Arlington, VT Arlington Village Historic District

Bennington, VT North Bennington Historic District

Bennington, VT North Bennington Depot

10 Wallingford, VT Wallingford Main Street Historic District None Wallingford, VT Rural Otter Creek Valley Historic District

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-92 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 4-20 Summary of Archaeological Sensitivity by Segment

Segment Areas of Potential Sensitivity

1 Possible industrial sites associated with Albany 

2 Portion of corridor near Mohawk River and Erie Canal

3 Portions of the corridor near the Champlain Canal and the barge canal between Fort Edward 

and Whitehall, and south of Saratoga Springs

4 Portions of the corridor along the Castleton River and in developed areas in Rutland and 

West Rutland

6 Potential sites near Anthony Kill, otherwise generally low sensitivity

7 Portions of corridor located close to Hoosic River

8 High sensitivity along most of corridor due to close proximity of Walloomsac River and 

Bennington Battlefield

9 Portions of corridor along Batten Kill; potential industrial sites associated with development of 

Arlington and South Shaftsbury

10 High sensitivity along Otter Creek, with several known sites; possible industrial sites 

associated with development of Manchester

4.17 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Section 4(f) resources, as defined in the DOT Act, are any public park, recreation 

area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or NRHP-listed or eligible property. Section 6(f) 

properties, as defined by the Land and Water Conservation Act, are those properties 

which have been purchased, maintained, or enhanced with Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies. This section focuses on recreational or wildlife 

refuge (e.g., non-historic) Section 4(f) properties and Section 6(f) properties. 

(Section 4(f)-protected historic resources are those identified in Section 4.5.5, Cultural 

Resources.) Direct impacts or constructive use (i.e., indirect impacts that diminish the 

protected property’s function) to these resources are prohibited unless no reasonable 

alternative is feasible. Impacts to properties protected by Section 4(f) are regulated by 

the US Department of Transportation and impacts to Section 6(f) lands are regulated 

by the US Department of Interior, National Park Service.

Section 4(f) resources also include any NRHP-listed or eligible property. These 

properties, and the potential effects of the project, are described above in Section 4.16, 

Cultural Resources. The analysis in Section 4.16 was conducted in accordance with 

the requirements of Section 106.

4.17.1 Methodology

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) lands within 250 feet of the rail centerline were identified 

using publically available data from NYSGDC and VCGI. New York Section 4(f) DEC 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-93 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Lands, State Lands, and Municipal lands data (2005) were used New York and in 

Vermont Section 4(f) Conserved and Recreational Lands data (2009) were used.

4.17.2 Existing Conditions 

The Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) protected properties along each segment within the 

project study area are described below.

Segment 1

One wildlife refuge Section 4(f) property owned by the NYSDEC, and two each 

wildlife refuges and recreational Section 4(f) municipal properties were identified 

adjacent to Segment 1:

 Corning City Preserve, south of the rail ROW on the shoreline of the Hudson 

River in Albany, NY;

 Riverfront Preserve, north of the rail ROW on the shoreline of the Hudson River 

in Albany, NY;

 Tivoli Park, in Albany, NY adjacent to the rail ROW;

 Cook Park, west of the New York State Thruway and north of the rail ROW in 

Colonie, NY; and

 NYSDEC-owned Albany Pine Bush Preserve, which contains a portion of the 

pitch pine-oak forest EO described above, south of the rail ROW in Colonie, NY.

No Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to Segment 1.

Segments 2, 6, 7, and 8

No Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to Segments 2, 6, 7, 

or 8.

Segment 3

One wildlife refuge Section 4(f) property owned by the NYDEC and one recreational 

Section 4(f) municipal property were identified adjacent to the rail line in Segment 3:

 Gavin Park, a municipal property in Wilton; and

 NYDEC Wilton Wildlife Preserve, on several parcels in Wilton.

No Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to Segment 3.

Segment 4

There were no recreational Section 4(f) properties identified adjacent to the New 

York portion of Segment 4. In Vermont, two recreational and one wildlife refuge

Section 4(f) properties were identified:

 Dewey Field, a municipal recreation area in Castleton north of the rail ROW;

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-94 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

 Blueberry Hill Wildlife Management Area, in Ira north of the rail ROW; and

 Depot Park, a municipal recreational facility adjacent to the rail ROW in Rutland.

No Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to Segment 4.

Segment 9

Four Section 4(f)-protected properties were identified adjacent to the rail line in 

Segment 9:

 Shaftsbury Elementary School playground, in South Shaftsbury;

 Howard Park, a municipal property east of the rail in Shaftsbury;

 Lake Shaftsbury State Park, west of the rail ROW and just south of the Arlington 

town line in Shaftsbury; and

 Arlington Recreation Park, between the Batten Kill and the rail ROW just north 

of Arlington.

No Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to Segment 9.

Segment 10

Three recreational and one wildlife refuge Section 4(f) properties were identified 

adjacent to Segment 10:

 The Dufresne Dam Pond Site, bisected by the rail ROW in Manchester, VT just 

south of Barnumville;

 Bullhead Pond, west of and adjacent to the rail ROW on the Manchester-Dorset, 

VT town line;

 Shaw Pond and Emerald Lake State Park, bisected by the rail ROW in Dorset, 

VT; and

 Otter Creek Wildlife Management properties in Mount Tabor, VT bisected by the 

rail ROW.

Five properties within the Green Mountain National Forest, and two Nelson Stream 

Bank properties in Mount Tabor, VT may also be Section 4(f)-protected properties. 

Additional research on these properties will be conducted during the Project Level 

analyses to determine their status.

No Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to Segment 10.

4.17.3 Environmental Consequences

The potential impacts to Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources from the No-Build and 

Proposed Action Alternatives are described below. “Impact” in the context of 

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) is defined as property acquisition or constructive use 

(i.e., impacts that change the property’s function).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-95 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.17.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not require any use of Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) 

resources.

4.17.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Thirteen Section 4(f)-protected properties are present near the rail ROW, along 

Segments 1, 9, and 10. No Section 6(f) properties were identified adjacent to any of 

the segments. Table 4-21 summarizes the number of Section 4(f) properties along 

each segment.

Table 4-21 Summary of Section 4(f) Properties, by Segment

Segment 

Number

Section 4(f) Properties

Total Number

Type

Recreational Wildlife Refuge

1 5 2 3

2 0 0 0

3 2 1 1

4 3 2 1

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 4 4 0

10 4 3 1

Of the 18 Section 4(f)-protected properties within the project study area, 12 are 

designated recreational uses and six are wildlife refuges (designated as preserves, 

wildlife management areas, or similar). 

The current freight use of the rail lines would not be substantively changed by the 

addition of passenger service; recreational activities or wildlife functions at nearby 

Section 4(f) properties would not be affected by the project and changes in noise levels 

that may result from the project are not anticipated to conflict with active recreational 

use. There would be no direct or constructive use of recreational Section 4(f) or 

Section 6(f) resources associated with improvements to the existing track 

infrastructure.

As discussed in Section 4.16, Cultural Resources, the project would not acquire 

property from any resource listed on or eligible for the NRHP that is not currently in 

transportation use. The project would rehabilitate the infrastructure of two existing 

railroads that are eligible as linear historic districts, but would not have an adverse 

effect on those resources. There would, therefore, be no use of historic properties 

under Section 4(f).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-96 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.18 Energy

This section evaluates the impacts to energy that may result from the No-Build and 

the Proposed Action Alternatives.

4.18.1 Methodology

Potential impacts to energy were estimated by comparing the existing rail service to 

the anticipated changes that would result from the Proposed Action Alternative. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were derived from the energy use and based on 

emission factors from The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol (GRP 2008). 

The GHG emissions analysis assumed all construction energy would be provided by 

diesel and used the diesel carbon dioxide (CO2) emission factors provided by General 

Reporting Protocol. Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions were assumed 

to be a similar proportion as for a highway project and estimated to be 5 percent of 

the total CO2 emissions; they were converted and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). 

Using CO2e allows various GHG emissions to be reported as a single unit. Given the 

conceptual level of the project design at this stage, is not currently possible to 

estimate impacts to energy that could result from construction activities with any 

degree of accuracy.

4.18.2 Existing Conditions

The existing Ethan Allen service from Rensselaer to Whitehall, NY, operates 

diesel-powered trains over the 200-mile round-trip distance on a once per day basis. 

A passenger train consumes about 55,000 British thermal units (BTUs) of energy per 

vehicle mile. The energy for a passenger train is in the form of diesel fuel, and the 

average fuel economy of a passenger train is approximately 0.7 miles per gallon 

(mpg). Information regarding current trip distance on the No-Build Alternative, fuel 

and energy use, and GHG emissions are shown in Table 4-22.

Table 4-22 Existing Daily Train Energy Use

Current Ethan Allen Train Travel Existing Conditions

Number of round trips per day 1

Distance through the project area 100 miles

Total train miles 200 miles

Fuel use 286 gallons

Energy use (Mbtu1) 11

GHG emissions (MT CO2e) 6.5

1- Mbtu = one million British Thermal Units

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-97 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.18.3 Environmental Consequences

This section describes the potential impacts to energy and natural resources that may 

result from the No-Build and the Proposed Action Alternatives.

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not cause a change in current energy consumption 

patterns or natural resource use. The No-Build Alternative retains existing rail 

service.

Proposed Action Alternative

Energy consumption patterns would be minimally changed by the Proposed Action 

Alternative. The existing Ethan Allen service runs 73,000 miles annually. Annual train 

miles would be an additional 85,410 miles for the new service between Albany and 

Rutland. Table 4-23 compares the energy impacts of the No-Build and Proposed Action 

Alternatives.

Table 4-23 Future Daily Energy Use and Resulting GHG Emissions

Train-Related Operations

VehicleRelated 

Operations

Total

Travel Conditions

No-Build

Alternative

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative

Difference Proposed 

Action 

Alternative

Number of round trips 

per day 1 2 1 -

Distance through the 

project area (miles) 100 217 117 -

Total miles 200 434 234 -2,497,900

Fuel use (gallons) 286 620 334 -115,6442

Energy use (Mbtu1) 11.0 23.8 12.8 -

GHG emissions 

(MT CO2e) 6.5 14.1 7.6 -1,0183 -1,003

1- Mbtu = one million British Thermal Units

2- Average Light Duty Vehicle MPG= 21.6 mpg (“Highway Statistics 2012” Chapter 5, Section 3.1; FHWA, 2012

3- 8.8 kg CO2/ gal gasoline (“Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks” US EPA, October 2008) [Converted from 19.4 lbs/gal].

The Proposed Action Alternative is projected to result in a total reduction in 1,003 tons 

per year of CO2 from the No-Build Alternative.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-98 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.19 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

This section identifies and evaluates potential impacts the visual and aesthetic 

resources along the project corridor.

4.19.1 Methodology

The existing visual and aesthetic conditions along the project corridor were identified 

by reviewing aerial photographs to determine the nature of the visual environment 

along the existing rail lines. Potential impacts to the visual and aesthetic resources 

were evaluated by reviewing areas where new construction would occur and 

assessing how the visual environment may change.

4.19.2 Existing Conditions

The existing rail lines pass through developed and undeveloped land. The existing 

visual environment along each of the segments is summarized below.

Segment 1

Segment 1 runs from Rensselaer through Albany to Schenectady, NY. Beginning in 

Rensselaer, the rail line crosses the Hudson River and enters Albany, passing through 

the northern extent of the city while paralleling I-90 in a northwesterly direction. 

Surrounding land in this area is developed with transportation, commercial, and 

industrial use. A portion of the segment between Albany and Schenectady, NY, passes 

through undeveloped land, although low-density commercial, industrial, and 

residential development is nearby. Entering Schenectady, the rail line passes through 

increasingly dense development, ultimately entering the downtown area.

The visual environment along Segment 1 is dominated by development in for the 

majority of its length. The visual environment is undisturbed in short intervals 

between the major cities.

Segment 2

Segment 2 runs from Schenectady to Glenville, NY. From the highly urbanized 

downtown Schenectady, the rail line crosses the Mohawk River and passes through 

low-density development of Glenville. Surrounding land use is principally 

residential, although undeveloped land (open space) is present as well.

The visual environment along Segment 2 varies from the urban views of Schenectady 

to the semi-rural character of the low-density development and open space in 

Glenville.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-99 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 3

Segment 3 runs from Glenville to Whitehall, NY. From the north side of Glenville, 

outside the urban core, the rail line passes through low-density rural development, 

farmland, and forested areas until reaching the outskirts of Saratoga Springs. The line 

passes along the western suburban edge of Saratoga Springs and then continues 

through low density rural development, farmland and forested areas to Fort Edward. 

The railroad crosses the Hudson River to enter Fort Edward, passes through the 

urban core of this small town, and then resumes its passage through mixed use rural 

areas to the small residential town of Whitehall. 

The visual environment along Segment 3 varies from the suburban views of Saratoga 

Springs to several small towns and the semi-rural character of the low-density 

development and open space in intervening areas.

Segment 4

Segment 4 runs from Whitehall, NY to Rutland, VT. The rail line passes near a 

residential area of Whitehall before exiting the town near an industrial site. The 

corridor passes through farmland and forested areas until reaching the New 

York/Vermont state line at Fair Haven. Residential, industrial, and commercial 

development adjoins the corridor in Fair Haven. The segment passes along the edges 

of the small towns of Hydeville and Castleton, near similarly developed areas 

interspersed with farmland and forest. The rail line parallels US Highway 4 between 

Castleton and West Rutland, generally passing through farmland and forested areas 

before entering the development of West Rutland and Rutland.

The visual environment along Segment 4 varies from the residential, commercial and 

industrial views of Whitehall, Fair Haven, Hydeville, Castleton, West Rutland, and 

Rutland to the semi-rural character of farmland and open space in intervening areas.

Segment 6

Segment 6 runs from Glenville to Mechanicville, NY. Exiting Glenville, the rail line 

passes through increasingly rural areas, with little adjacent development until near 

Elnora, NY. Some commercial and residential development is proximate to the rail 

line in this reach, especially near the I-87 crossing. Open space and agricultural lands 

are present along the rail line from near I-87 until Mechanicville. The rail line enters 

this city from the northwest, passing a rail yard before skirting the densely 

developed downtown area. Some commercial and residential land use abuts the rail 

line in this final reach.

The visual environment along Segment 6 varies between views of agricultural land, 

low-density development, and open space between Glenville and Mechanicville. 

Some intervals of dense development are visible adjoining the rail line in 

Mechanicville.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-100 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 7

Segment 7 runs from Mechanicville to Hoosick Junction, NY. Exiting the densely 

developed northern extent of Mechanicville, the rail line crosses the Hudson River 

and passes through agricultural land of the Hudson River Valley. It passes through 

several small towns along the Hoosick River before reaching Hoosick Junction.

The visual environment along Segment 7 is dominated by views of agricultural land 

and small communities, with some urban views while exiting Mechanicville.

Segment 8

Segment 8 runs from Hoosick Junction, NY to North Bennington, VT. Similar to 

Segment 7, the rail line passes through agricultural land and small communities in 

the Hudson River Valley, with some open space in irregular intervals. Adjoining 

residential development increases as the rail line approaches North Bennington.

The visual environment along Segment 8 is dominated by views of agricultural land 

and small communities, with increasing views of small city development in North 

Bennington.

Segment 9

Segment 9 runs from North Bennington to Manchester, VT. Exiting North 

Bennington, this segment passes through open space and agricultural land, near 

small towns and cities such as Shaftsbury, Arlington, and Sunderland, VT before 

entering Manchester. Rural residential land is the most common development type; 

there is little commercial or industrial development along this segment. 

Development density increases in Manchester.

The visual environment along Segment 9 is dominated by views of open space, 

agricultural land, and small communities, with increasing views of small city 

development in Manchester.

Segment 10

Segment 10 runs from Manchester to Rutland, VT. Exiting Manchester, the rail line 

passes through low density rural residential and agricultural land as well as small 

communities such as East Dorset and Clarendon, VT. Some intervals of open space 

are present along this segment. Entering Rutland, the rail line passes near 

commercial, industrial, and residential development of increasing density.

The visual environment along Segment 10 is dominated by views of open space, 

agricultural land, and small communities, with increasing views of small city 

development in Rutland.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-101 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.19.3 Environmental Consequences

The potential impacts to visual and aesthetic resources from the No-Build and 

Proposed Action Alternatives are described below.

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would not impact visual and aesthetic resources.

Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative would use existing active rail lines for its entire 

length. New infrastructure in certain segments (as listed in Table 4-1) would be 

limited to sidings to allow trains to pass, and new stations in Manchester and North 

Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY. Some track relocation within the existing 

railbed and bridge modifications may be necessary. No work is planned outside the 

ROW and no changes to the visual character or setting are anticipated. Construction 

activities that have the potential to change the visual and aesthetic environment are 

described for each segment below.

Segment 1

No infrastructure improvements are planned for Segment 1. The visual and aesthetic 

environment would be unchanged.

Segment 2

Two miles of new main line siding track would be constructed in Segment 2, within 

the existing rail ROW. The new siding track would be similar to the existing track, 

and not materially change the visual and aesthetic environment along Segment 2.

Segment 3

No infrastructure improvements are planned for Segment 3. The visual and aesthetic 

environment would be unchanged.

Segment 4

No infrastructure improvements are planned for Segment 4. The visual and aesthetic 

environment would be unchanged.

Segment 6

Six miles of new main line siding track would be constructed in Segment 6, within 

the existing rail ROW. The new siding track would be similar to the existing track, 

and not materially change the visual and aesthetic environment along Segment 6.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-102 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Segment 7

A second main line track would be constructed in Segment 7, within the existing rail 

ROW. The new track would be similar to the existing track, and not materially 

change the visual and aesthetic environment along Segment 7. A new station would 

be constructed in Mechanicville. The station would consist of a platform, shelter, 

walkways, and parking lot. These features would have little impact to the visual 

environment of the rail ROW in Mechanicville; however, this would be evaluated in 

a subsequent Project Level NEPA document once a location is selected.

Segment 8

The existing main line track would be upgraded and all bridges rated “poor” would 

be reconstructed in Segment 8, within the existing rail ROW. This new infrastructure 

would be similar to the existing track, and not materially change the visual and 

aesthetic environment along Segment 8. Additionally, a new station would be 

constructed in North Bennington. The station would consist of a platform, shelter, 

walkways, and parking lot. These features would have little impact to the visual 

environment of the rail ROW in North Bennington; however, this would be 

evaluated in a subsequent Project Level NEPA document once a location is selected.

Segment 9

The existing main line track would be upgraded and all bridges rated “poor” would 

be reconstructed in Segment 9, within the existing rail ROW. This new infrastructure 

would be similar to the existing track, and not materially change the visual and 

aesthetic environment along Segment 9. Additionally, a new station would be 

constructed in Manchester. The station would consist of a platform, shelter, 

walkways, and parking lot. These features would have little impact to the visual 

environment of the rail ROW in Manchester; however, this would be evaluated in a 

subsequent Project Level NEPA document once a location is selected.

Segment 10

The existing main line track would be upgraded in Segment 10, within the existing 

rail ROW. This new infrastructure would be similar to the existing track, and not 

materially change the visual and aesthetic environment along Segment 10.

Summary

The NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail service would utilize existing active rail 

lines for its entire length. New construction in certain segments would be limited to 

sidings to allow trains to pass, new double track, upgraded track, and replaced 

bridges, all within the existing rail ROW. New stations would be constructed in 

Manchester and North Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY. None of these 

activities are expected to substantively change the visual and aesthetic environment.

The existing viewshed of the rail corridor from the surrounding land uses would be 

maintained under the Proposed Action Alternative.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-103 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

4.20 Construction Period Impacts

Construction period impacts cannot be accurately evaluated at this stage of the 

project because detailed engineering design has not been completed. This section 

generally characterizes construction impacts that may be expected for the project.

Construction period activities may result in localized, short-term impacts to certain 

resources, as described below.

4.20.1.1 Transportation

Traffic delays may result from construction activities during infrastructure 

reconstruction, in particular where grade crossings (public at-grade or bridge 

crossings) are upgraded or replaced. Detours would be used to direct traffic around 

construction zones.

4.20.1.2 Air Quality

Air quality may be impacted by exhaust emissions from construction equipment and 

dust generated by earthmoving equipment or wind. Construction contractors would 

be required to comply with state and local emission control regulations or ordinances 

for construction equipment, and implement dust control measures (e.g., watering) 

during construction activities.

4.20.1.3 Noise

Noise would be generated by construction equipment engines, pile drivers or 

jackhammers, and drilling rigs. Construction contractors would be required to 

comply with state and local noise management regulations or ordinances for 

construction activities.

4.20.1.4 Vibration

Vibration would be generated by construction pile drivers, jackhammers, and 

drilling rigs. Construction contractors would be required to implement vibration 

management measures during construction activities.

4.20.1.5 Water Resources

Water resources may be affected by stormwater runoff from construction sites. 

Construction contractors would be required to comply with National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for stormwater management, 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-104 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

including implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent or minimize 

impacts to water resources.

4.20.1.6 Summary

The project would not result in any significant short-term impacts to environmental 

resources from construction when regulations and ordinances are complied with and 

mitigation measures are used.

4.21 Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts

This section provides an assessment of the indirect effects and cumulative impacts of 

the project in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in the project study area and the surrounding region.

The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500 et seq require an assessment of indirect effects and 

cumulative impacts for federally assisted projects. Indirect effects are defined by CEQ 

as “effects which are caused by the [proposed] action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects include 

growth-inducing effects and other effects related to changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density, or growth rate...”.

Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQ as “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.” Cumulative impacts include the direct and indirect impacts of a project 

together with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of others.

4.21.1 Methodology

The project has the potential to result in indirect effects and, when combined with 

past, present and other reasonably foreseeable future actions, could result in 

cumulative impacts. The potential for indirect effects was assessed for each resource 

in the project study, using methods similar to those for assessing direct impacts.

Federal guidance was used in evaluating the project’s cumulative effects, specifically 

CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act

(CEQ 1997). The analysis was completed by adding the project’s direct and indirect 

impacts on the natural and human environment to the impacts from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are 

defined as specific projects that are, for example, in a public planning or permitting 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-105 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

phase; conceptual studies and speculative projects are not considered reasonably 

foreseeable.

As described in Section 2.4, Coordination with Other Initiatives, recent and ongoing 

transportation projects within the project study area include:

 ABRB 1 and 2 Programs (between Manchester and North Bennington, VT): The 

preliminary work consisted of track, bridge and grade crossing rehabilitation and 

has been mostly completed.

 ABRB S Program (between Hoosick Junction, NY and North Bennington, VT):

The work primarily consisted of track, bridge and grade crossing rehabilitation 

and was partially completed.

 ABRB SC Program (between Hoosick Junction, NY and Manchester, VT): This 

program involved upgrading the ABRB corridor to FRA Class III operations 

from Hoosick Junction, NY to Burlington, VT in order to accommodate future 

freight and passenger rail service.

These projects were considered in the cumulative effects evaluation.

4.21.2 Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action Alternative is unlikely to generate local or regional growth in 

jobs or population. However, the Proposed Action Alternative could affect where the 

growth occurs, the form of the growth, and the pace of redevelopment, indirectly 

affecting land use and socioeconomics. Changes in land use that indirectly result 

from the project could affect other resources as well, as described below.

Development in the vicinity of the new stations, whether “transit-oriented 

development” or not, may result if businesses chose to locate near stations to take 

advantage of the train riders. However, as described in Section 4.3, Transportation, the 

increases in ridership are anticipated be low, on the order of 30 to 40 per day. It is 

unlikely that a business would specifically chose to locate near a station because of 

this number of potential customers, although existing nearby businesses could 

benefit. Indirect effects on local land use or socioeconomics would be minimal.

There is limited potential for new development pressure on a regional basis. If new 

development were to occur it would likely be associated with the Capital District 

(such as bedroom community development for persons employed in Albany). That

pressure may be directed toward the vicinity of the proposed new Mechanicville 

Station and, perhaps, North Bennington. These areas are currently not considered 

“urbanized” and may be seen as new development opportunities for low-density 

exurban residential development. As described in Section 4.12, Land Use, 

development density in the area is considered low; there is low pressure to develop 

additional land outside of the urban areas. It is unlikely that new development 

pressure in Mechanicville or North Bennington would be substantive. Commercial or 

industrial development is not expected to indirectly result from the project. The 

Proposed Action Alternative would indirectly result in minimal changes to land use.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-106 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Changes in land use could affect natural resources and the human environment 

depending upon where they occur. Residential development of undeveloped land, for 

example, could impact water resources, wetlands, floodplains, ecological systems 

(wildlife habitat), or threatened or endangered species if these resources are present in 

the development area. Residential development can also affect traffic, air quality, noise

and vibration, environmental justice neighborhoods, public safety, cultural resources, 

energy, or the visual environment if commuters drive cars to stations or build homes that 

change the visual setting. Impacts to these resources are governed by environmental 

regulations at the federal, state, or local levels and are therefore expected to be minimal. 

With the low level of land use changes expected to indirectly result from the Proposed 

Action Alternative, these further impacts would be de minimus.

Indirect socioeconomic effects at the local level could be associated with the creation 

of new access opportunities to goods, services, employment, and labor. Given the 

projected ridership assumed for the project, however, it is unlikely that indirect local 

socioeconomic effects would be significant. As mentioned above, it is possible that 

new station parking may provide an opportunity for municipalities to harness 

commuter spending power, and thus lead to possible positive indirect socioeconomic 

effects. Given the size of the stations, however, with parking for a maximum of 

50 cars at one time, it is reasonable to conclude that such localized effects to 

surrounding businesses would not be significant.

The types of indirect benefits that communities may experience are better assessed at a 

regional level, and would consist of improved public transportation access to 

employment, goods, and services. Considering the socioeconomic conditions for the 

counties and cities in the project study area, as described in Section 4.16, Socio-Economic 

Environment, the following low magnitude changes in regional socioeconomic 

conditions may result indirectly from the project.

While Washington County, NY would not likely experience any benefit from the 

project, persons seeking employment in Vermont may be able to access employment 

opportunities in the New York Capital District, where employment has generally 

increased. There is also the potential for Vermont and New York residents northeast 

of Albany and Rensselaer to seek employment in Saratoga County, where 

employment has also increased. However, it is expected that the numbers of persons 

in Vermont that would be employed in New York cities would be small and not 

likely affect the larger pattern of job loss in the Vermont counties.

The number of firms is smallest in the Vermont counties and Washington 

County, NY. The new access to potential employees (labor) living in Vermont and in 

the Capital District could provide a stimulus to establish or locate businesses in 

Washington, Saratoga, and Rensselaer Counties of New York, particularly around 

Mechanicville, NY. Likewise the new access to potential employees (labor) living in 

the Capital District could provide stimulus to establish or locate businesses in 

Vermont. Business location and establishment depends on many factors, however, 

including taxation, and so it is difficult to estimate the potential for such indirect 

effects without detailed analysis. Based on the available information regarding 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-107 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

ridership, as well as the small populations in Vermont and the competitiveness of 

Albany, NY, it is anticipated that there is limited potential for the project to cause 

substantial business development outside the cities comprising the Capital District.

Given the limited potential to increase employment, it is unlikely that substantial 

increases to median per capita income or median household income in Vermont or 

parts of New York, like Schenectady, could be indirectly attributable to the project. 

Likewise, overall poverty rates are not likely to be affected by the project.

As mentioned above, there is a potential for shifts in population associated with new 

commuting access. For example, there is the possibility that persons already 

employed in the Capital District may seek housing in areas north and east that would 

be served by the proposed Mechanicville Station or in Vermont. The median values 

of homes in Vermont were substantially lower than in New York. Depending on 

multiple other factors, including development restrictions, perceived quality of life, 

including schools and other community facilities and services, and travel time, it is 

possible that the project could result in the indirect development of “bedroom” 

communities in the vicinity of Mechanicville and areas east along the rail line. 

Further study of potential pressure to shift population may be conducted as part of 

Project Level analyses for the stations.

To the extent that population shifts may occur there may be some changes in 

population counts for each county or city. Though the area is not generally diverse in 

demographic composition, there already exists the concentration of minorities within 

the cores of the urbanized areas; and there is already the similar urban concentration 

of persons living in poverty. Given that this condition already exists, it is possible 

that shifts in population may further exacerbate demographic polarities. This is 

particularly the case given the limited potential for overall improvements to 

socioeconomic conditions in the future (either with or without the project), which if 

possible could create new incentives for relocation, particularly for the currently 

economically disadvantaged as their own situations improve. Further study of 

potential pressure to shift population may be conducted as part of Project Level 

analyses of the stations.

To the extent that New York areas such as Glens Falls, Saratoga Springs, and 

Glenville may have grown due to their rail linkage to Albany and Rensselaer and 

extra-regional points north and south, it is reasonable to anticipate that new 

development pressures in Vermont, south of Rutland, may result from the project. 

Thus, there is the possibility that the project may indirectly affect socioeconomic 

conditions, as it would provide new access to potential market opportunities for 

development (housing, commercial activity, employment centers, etc.). However, as 

described in the land uses discussion above, new development pressure is expected 

to be minimal, and the socioeconomic effects would also likely be minimal.

Because new access to Vermont will be provided from the Capital District, which 

links into areas south (including New York City), there is the potential for increases 

in tourism in Vermont, particularly seasonal tourism associated with “leaf peeping” 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-108 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

in the fall and skiing in the winter. As described in Section 4.16, sales attributable to 

accommodation and food services were lower in Vermont than in New York; this 

may be due to limited access and also may be due to limited industry (existing hotel 

accommodations and similar tourist infrastructure) in the area. A detailed analysis of 

the Vermont tourism industry during Project Level analyses of the stations would be 

necessary to determine whether significant indirect effects would result from the 

project. Given the ridership numbers assumed, however, anticipated demand would 

not represent notable increases in tourism.

None of these indirect effects to the socioeconomic environment, insofar as they can 

be determined via this Service Level analyses, are likely to be significant. Further 

study may be required at the Project Level analyses of the stations to determine 

potential indirect effects associated with a population shift. Depending on where the 

new development may occur, tax bases may be positively affected and some 

municipalities may experience positive potential fiscal improvements as an indirect 

result of the project. At this stage of analysis, it is anticipated that any such effects 

would be minimal and not significant. Likewise, demographic changes may also 

occur, together with population shift, but neither the population shift nor the 

demographic change would be expected to be significant.

4.21.3 Cumulative Impacts

The project study area has been subject to development of increasing intensity over 

the last 400 years, but is effectively stable at this time. Impacts to the natural and 

human environment from past activities have largely stabilized, and no large-scale 

new projects are planned. The recent and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed 

above will improve the existing rail infrastructure but do not consist of new rail lines 

that would have a substantive direct effect on the environment. Adding new 

passenger service to the existing rail lines would also not have a direct substantive 

effect to any resource. Work that extends outside the ROW may affect certain 

resources.

As described in previous sections of this chapter, there is a potential for the Proposed 

Action Alternative to have a minor direct adverse impact to noise and vibration 

levels, ecological systems, and energy, and minor indirect effects to land use and 

socioeconomics. The cumulative impacts analysis below focuses on these resources. 

Potential adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species, land use, and visual 

and aesthetic resources would be identified in future Project Level NEPA documents. 

There is no potential for the Proposed Action to have a permanent adverse impact to 

transportation, air quality, water resources, wetlands, floodplains, socioeconomics, 

environmental justice neighborhoods, public safety, cultural resources, or Section 4(f) 

or Section 6(f) resources; there is no potential for cumulative effects to these resources 

as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative.

The rail improvement projects that are programmed and underway would occur under 

the No-Build Alternative and would facilitate the Proposed Action Alternative. These 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-109 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

projects have been taken into consideration in the current design of the Proposed 

Action Alternative (e.g., in regard to the extent of infrastructure improvements 

required). These other projects do not add to the minimal indirect land use and 

socioeconomic impacts expected from the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.21.3.1 Noise

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have created a noise 

environment that varies considerably through the project study area, from quiet 

landscapes of undeveloped areas to noisy landscapes of the various cities. The existing 

rail lines passing through these areas are used at varying levels of intensity, including 

heavily used corridors. The frequency of the noise generated by trains is episodic, 

occurring only when the trains pass. The addition of one roundtrip (two passes) of 

passenger trains for the Proposed Action Alternative would not substantively add to 

the episodes of increased noise levels. There would be minimal cumulative impacts to 

noise levels from the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.21.3.2 Vibration

Similar to the noise environment described above, other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions have created a vibration environment that varies 

considerably through the project study area, from calm landscapes of undeveloped 

areas to active landscapes of the various cities. The existing rail lines passing through 

these areas are used at varying levels of intensity, including heavily used corridors. 

The frequency of the vibration generated by trains is episodic, occurring only when the 

trains pass. The addition of one roundtrip (two passes) of passenger trains for the 

Proposed Action Alternative would not substantively add to the episodes of increased 

vibration levels. There would be minimal cumulative impacts to vibration levels from 

the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.21.3.3 Ecological Systems

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have altered ecological 

systems to varying degrees through the project study area, from natural landscapes of 

undeveloped areas to highly developed landscapes of the various cities. Some of the 

ecological systems have been substantively disturbed by historical activities, but there 

are no current or known reasonably foreseeable future actions that would further affect 

ecological systems. Wildlife habitat or corridors within Segments 1, 9, and 10 may be 

impacted if work for the Proposed Action Alternative is required outside the existing 

rail footprint to modify existing or construct new tracks or stream or road crossings. 

Additional investigation of ecological systems would be conducted as part of Project 

Level NEPA review during preliminary and final design to identify any potential 

impacts and, if necessary, design appropriate impact avoidance or minimization 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-110 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

measures. Cumulative impacts to ecological systems may result if impacts cannot be 

avoided.

4.21.3.4 Energy

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions use energy in the project 

study area, including transportation activities. None of the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions are expected to increase energy use; they are railroad improvement 

projects that improve the railroad infrastructure but are not expected to increase its 

use. The Proposed Action Alternative would use slightly more than double the energy 

than the No-Build Alternative due to an additional daily trip from the new service. The 

Proposed Action Alternative, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not result in a substantive change in cumulative 

energy use.

4.21.3.5 Land Use

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have altered land use to 

varying degrees through the project study area, from natural landscapes of 

undeveloped areas to highly developed landscapes of the various cities. Land use in 

the project study area includes residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and 

agricultural properties, as well as undeveloped land. There are no current or known 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that would further change land use. The 

reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this assessment are railroad 

infrastructure improvement projects that will not affect land use. The Proposed Action 

Alternative may directly or indirectly impact land use outside of the ROW depending 

upon the selected locations for the proposed new stations in Manchester and North 

Bennington, VT and Mechanicville, NY. Property may need to be acquired to 

accommodate small parking lots at the new station sites. Additional investigation of 

changes to land use would be conducted as part of Project Level NEPA review during 

preliminary and final design. The impacts may be beneficial if abandoned or blighted 

properties are obtained for the project. The Proposed Action Alternative, in 

combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may 

result in beneficial cumulative impacts to land use.

4.21.3.6 Socioeconomics

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have altered the 

socioeconomic environment to varying degrees through the project study area, rural 

economies in less developed areas to urban economies in the larger cities. There are no 

current or known reasonably foreseeable future actions that would further alter the 

socioeconomic environment. The reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in 

this assessment are railroad infrastructure improvement projects that will not affect 

socioeconomics. The Proposed Action Alternative is expected to indirectly benefit the 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-111 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

economy by providing new rail service to southwestern Vermont and east central New 

York. The Proposed Action Alternative, in combination with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in beneficial cumulative impacts to 

the socioeconomic environment.

4.22 Summary of Findings

This Service Level analysis identified the existing conditions along each segment 

comprising the Proposed Action Alternative and the potential impacts of the 

No-Build Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative for the following 

resources:

 Transportation

 Air quality

 Noise

 Vibration

 Water resources

 Wetlands

 Floodplains

 Ecological Systems

 Threatened and

endangered species

 Land use

 Socio-economic environment

 Environmental justice

 Public health and safety

 Cultural resources

 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources

 Energy and natural resources

 Visual and aesthetic resources

Potential construction period impacts to air quality, noise, vibration, and water 

resources were also evaluated.

Because the project, at this stage of development, would extend outside the existing 

rail ROW in only at the proposed station locations, this evaluation concluded that 

there is a negligible to low potential for the project to result in adverse impacts to 

natural resources. The human resources present within the project study area would 

not be adversely affected by the project, as the new service would follow existing rail 

lines, not disrupting communities in any substantive way. The Proposed Action 

Alternative would not result in substantive direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse 

impacts to natural resources or the human environment.

The construction period impact analysis concluded that the project would not result 

in any significant short-term impacts to environmental resources when regulations 

and ordinances are complied with and mitigation measures are used.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4-112 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

5

Agency and Railroad Coordination 

and Public Involvement

5.1 Agency and Railroad Coordination

This section discusses agency and railroad coordination that has occurred 

throughout this study.

5.1.1 Inter-state Agency Coordination

The Vision for the New England High‐Speed and Intercity Rail Network collectively 

developed by the Departments of Transportation in the six New England States 

provides a vision for rail in the region and a commitment to work together to 

coordinate efforts. The development of the rail system envisioned by this document 

will “... provide a foundation for economic competitiveness and promote livable 

communities through a network of High‐Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail routes 

connecting every major city in New England with smaller cities and rural areas and 

internationally to Montreal.” This document serves as a guideline to ensure that 

actions taken to advance intercity high speed rail are coordinated among the New 

England States.

5.1.2 Scoping Process

The planning and project development activities have been a cooperative and

collaborative effort by VTrans and NYSDOT in cooperation with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). VTrans serves as the overall project lead and is responsible for 

managing the Project Management Team (PMT), which consists of representatives 

from VTrans, NYSDOT, the Rutland Regional Planning Commission (RRPC) and the 

Bennington County Regional Commission (BCRC).

Agency and Railroad Coordination and Public Involvement 5-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Stakeholder Committee meetings were held with representatives from VTrans, 

NYSDOT, FRA, potentially affected rail operators, regional planning agencies within 

the project study area and various advocacy groups:

 March 22, 2011

 June 7, 2011

 December 13, 2011

 October 18, 2012

 December 11, 2012

Railroad owners and operators which have participated in these discussions include: 

Pan Am Railways (PAR), Vermont Rail Systems (VRS), Canadian Pacific Rail (CP), 

CSX, and Amtrak. Rail interest groups that have also participated throughout this 

process include: the Vermont Rail Action Network (VRAN), the Empire State 

Passenger’s Association (ESPA), Rutland Railway Association, Friends of Rutland 

Rail, and the Southwestern Vermont Rail Corridor Steering Committee. Other 

interested parties invited to participate in the study included the US Army Corps of 

Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Vermont Division for Historic 

Preservation, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New 

York State Historic Preservation Office, State Representatives, local elected officials 

and municipalities, and other interest groups and individuals.

Through the preparation of this document, these representatives have been in 

constant communication, both formally and informally. Through information sharing 

and thoughtful negotiation, a Service Development Plan has been prepared, which 

provides for both enhanced passenger and freight rail service. All parties have been 

provided with an opportunity to participate in project related discussions in an effort 

to identify and resolve issues early on in the process.

5.1.3 Applicable Regulations and Permits

The Proposed Action would require permits and approvals from several Federal, 

state and local agencies. Table 5-1 lists the permits and approvals that are anticipated 

for the Proposed Action.

Agency and Railroad Coordination and Public Involvement 5-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Table 5-1 Possible Permits or Approvals

Agency Permit or Approval

US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit for 

extended culverts and upgraded bridges

US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Regions 1 & 2

Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General 

Permit to stormwater discharges during construction

Vermont Department of Environmental 

Conservation

Wetlands Conditional Use Permit for new track 

sidings where these are located within 50 feet of 

wetlands

New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation

Wetland Permit for extended culverts and upgraded 

bridges

Local Municipalities Approval for temporary closings/detours associated 

with construction

Building permits as needed

Approval for intersection and signal modifications, as 

appropriate

Stormwater permits, as needed

Street opening permits, as needed

5.2 Public Involvement

This section describes how the public was involved during the study. 

5.2.1 Public Informational Meetings

Public informational meetings were held at various locations within the project study 

area to provide the public an opportunity to learn about the scope of the proposed 

project:

 March 22, 2011 (Bennington, VT) – Project Introduction, Purpose and Need, 

Screening Criteria

 June 7, 2011 (Mechanicville, NY) – Project Recap, Alternatives, Evaluation 

Methodology

 June 8, 2011 (Rutland, VT) – Project Recap, Alternatives, Evaluation 

Methodology

 December 13, 2011 (Bennington, VT)

 December 14, 2011 (Mechanicville, NY)

 December 11, 2012 (Mechanicville, NY)

 December 12, 2012 (Rutland, VT)

Agency and Railroad Coordination and Public Involvement 5-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Public opinion and comments were documented and considered in the development 

of study recommendations. Meeting minutes from each of the public meetings are 

provided in the project web site, described below.

5.2.2 Project Web Site

A project website, www.ny-vt-passengerrail.org, has been established which 

provides the public project updates, notices of meetings, links to other area 

organizations and studies, access to minutes of meetings and technical documents,

and an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.

5.2.3 Project Newsletters

Four project newsletters were prepared and distributed to the project mailing list at 

key milestones over the course of the study:

 Newsletter #1 (March 2011) – Project Introduction, Purpose and Need, Schedule, 

Stakeholder Committee

 Newsletter #2 (June 2011) – Summary of Public Involvement Activities, Refined 

Purpose and Need, Notice of June 2011 Public Meetings

 Newsletter #3 (December 2011) – Phase One Screening

 Newsletter #4 (December 2012) – Phase Two Screening

These newsletters covered significant topics that were critical to the study’s 

completion. Newsletters were distributed to coincide with upcoming public 

meetings.

Agency and Railroad Coordination and Public Involvement 5-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

6

References

ACRPC, BCRC, CCMPO, CCRPC, NRPC, RRPC, and VTrans. 2010. Vermont 

Western Corridor Transportation Management Plan. February 2010. Vermont 

Agency of Transportation; Bennington County Regional Commission; 

Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization; and Addison County, 

Chittenden County, Northwest, and Rutland Regional Planning Commissions; 

prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff.

AMTK. 2000. Vermont Western Corridor Study, Report to Congress. January 28, 

2000. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrack).

BCRC. 2007. The Regional Plan, Bennington, Vermont. May 17, 2007. Bennington 

County Regional Commission. Available at 

http://www.bcrcvt.com/documents/regionalplan.pdf.

BCRC. 2008. Bennington County Regional Transportation Plan. Fall 2008. 

Bennington County Regional Commission, prepared by Bannon Engineering and 

von Grossmann & Company.

BLHS. 2006. History of the Delaware and Hudson Railroad. December 31, 2006. Bridge 

Line Historical Society. Available at http://bridge-line.org/blhs/history.html. 

Accessed October 2011.

CDRPC. 2009. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Capital District. 

September 2009. Capital District Regional Planning Commission. Available at 

http://www.cdrpc.org/2009-09_CDRPC_CEDS.pdf.

CEQ. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

January 1997. Council on Environmental Quality. Available at: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/cumulative_effects.html.

ConnDOT, MaineDOT, MassDOT, New Hampshire DOT, RIDOT, and VTrans. 2009. 

Vision for the New England High-Speed and Intercity Rail Network. July 2009. 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island 

Departments of Transportation and Vermont Agency of Transportation. Available 

at http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs/PR071309.pdf. 

The Climate Registry. 2008. General Reporting Protocol. May 2008. Available at 

http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf.

References 6-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Curry, Bruce P. 1975. “Rutland Revival – the Vermont Railway.” Railfan and Railroad 

Magazine, Summer 1975. Available at http://www.railfan.com. Accessed November 

2011.

DuFresne, Marilyn E. 2010. Delaware and Hudson Railway. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 

2010. 7-8. Available at http://books.google.com. Accessed November 2011.

Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977. Available at 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/eo11988.cfm.

Executive Order 11990. 1977. Protection of Wetlands. May 24, 1977. Available at 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/eo11990.cfm.

Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. February 11, 1994. Available at 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf

Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., Barnes, C., Herold, N., and 

Wickham, J., 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the 

Conterminous United States, PE&RS, Vol. 77(9):858-864. Available at 

http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2006.php.

Joseph, Linda C. and Resch, Linda D. 2000. Fitchburg Railroad: 1845-1900. Available at 

http://www.cyberbee.com/henryhikes/fitchburgrr.html. Accessed November 

2011.

Mohawk and Hudson Railroad. Available at http://oldrailhistory.com. Accessed 

November 2011.

NAPL. 2003. Historical Notes, Hoosac Tunnel Collection. May 2003. North Adams Public 

Library, compiled by Gary Smith. Available at 

http://www.naplibrary.com/HTHistoricNotes.html. Accessed November 2011.

NOAA-NMFS. 2012. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). December 5, 2012. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration – National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm

NYCSHS. 2008. NYC Railroad History. May 2008. New York Central System Historical 

Society, Inc. Available at http://nycshs.blogspot.com/2008/05/nyc-railroadhistory.html. Accessed November 2011.

NYSDOT. 2008. Highway Data Services Bureau Online Traffic Data Viewer. New York 

State Department of Transportation. Available at http://gis.dot.ny.gov/tdv/.

NYSDOT. 2009. NY State Rail Plan, Strategies for a New Age. New York State 

Department of Transportation. Available at 

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/planningbureau/state-rail-plan/repository/State%20Rail%20Plan%202009-02-10.pdf.

NYSDOT ESB. 2008. MOBILE6 Emission Factors for Regional, Mesoscale, and CMAQ 

Project Emission Calculations for Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady 

References 6-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Counties (for year 2030). April 2008. New York State Department of 

Transportation – Environmental Science Bureau. Available at 

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmentalanalysis/repository/albany.pdf.

RRPC. 2006. Rutland Region Economic Development Strategy (Draft). July 2006. Rutland 

Regional Planning Commission. Available at 

http://rutlandrpc.org/_download.php?mode=pub&id=5&name=CEDS_update

d_6_29_06.pdf.

RRPC. 2008. Rutland Regional Plan. April 15, 2008. Rutland Regional Planning 

Commission. Available at 

http://www.rutlandrpc.org/Plan08/Regional_Plan_2008.pdf.

USBOC. 2000. MCD/County-To-MCD/ County-To-County Worker Flow Files. U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerfl

ow.html.

USBOC. 2011. Census Quickfacts. October 18, 2011. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Data accessed November 1, 2011.

USDOI-FWS. 2004. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Fact Sheet. July 2004. US Department of 

Interior -- Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/indianabat.fs.pdf.

USDOI-FWS. 2008. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Fact Sheet. January 

2008. US Department of Interior – Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/kbb_fact.html. 

USDOI-FWS. 2012. Bog Turtle (Clemmys (Glyptemys) muhlenbergii) Species Profile.

December 12, 2012. US Department of Interior – Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048.

USDOT-FRA. 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. May 26, 1999. US 

Department of Transportation – Federal Railroad Administration. Available at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1348.

USDOT-FRA. 2005. High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment. October 2005. US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad 

Administration – Office of Railroad Policy and Development. Available at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1218.

USDOT-FTA. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report FTA-VA-90-

1003-06. May 2006. US Department of Transportation – Federal Transit 

Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. Available at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.

USEPA-OMS. 2004. Mobile6.2 Vehicle Emissions Modeling Software. May 2004. US 

Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Mobile Sources. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/m6.htm.

References 6-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

USEPA-OTAQ. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025. April 2009.

US Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

Available at www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf.

USEPA. 2012. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. July 10, 

2012. US Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html

VHS. 2011. Vermont Historical Society. Vermont Railroad Timeline. Available at 

http://www.vermonthistory.org. Accessed November 2011.

VTrans. 1998. Albany/Bennington/Rutland/Burlington Rail Passenger Service Study. 

November 1998. Vermont Agency of Transportation, prepared by LS Transit 

Systems.

VTrans. 2004. Albany/Bennington/Rutland/Burlington Project. October 2004. 

Vermont Agency of Transportation, prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates 

LLP.

VTrans. 2004. Comparative Analysis of Transportation Needs in Four Areas of 

Vermont, Final Report. January 15, 2004. Vermont Agency of Transportation 

Board. Prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. Available at 

http://www.rpc.bennington.vt.us/documents/2004transportationboard.pdf.

VTrans. 2006. State Rail & Policy Plan, State of Vermont. December 2006. Vermont 

Agency of Transportation, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Available at 

http://railroads.vermont.gov/railpolicyplan.htm.

VTrans 2008 (Route Log) AADTs State Highways, May 2009. Vermont Agency of 

Transportation.

VTrans. 2009. Ethan Allen Express Improv. & Extension, High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program: Track 2 Application Form. October 02, 2009. 

Vermont Agency of Transportation. Available at 

http://railroads.vermont.gov/documents/ARRAstimulus/AOT-OPSRail_ARRA_preaward_attachment2.pdf.

VTrans. 2009. NY-VT Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Project, High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program: Track 3 Application Form. August 24, 2009. 

Vermont Agency of Transportation. Available at 

http://railroads.vermont.gov/documents/ARRAstimulus/AOT-OPSRail_ARRA_preaward_attachment3.pdf. 

VTrans. 2010. Projected Improvements to the Vermont Railway Western Corridor. 

January 2010. Vermont Agency of Transportation.

VTrans. 2010. VTrans (2008) Traffic Flow Map. September 2010. Vermont Agency of 

Transportation. Available at 

http://www.aot.state.vt.us/Planning/Documents/TrafResearch/Publications/

pub.htm.

References 6-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

7

Distribution

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council

Attn: Aaron Frankenfeld, Transportation Planning Director

11 South Street, Suite 203

Glens Falls, NY 12801

afrankenfeld@agftc.org

Bennington County Regional Commission

Attn: Mark Anders, Regional Planner/Transportation Program Manager

111 South Street, Suite 203

Bennington, VT 05201

manders@bcrcvt.org

Canadian Pacific Railway

Attn: Judith Mitchell, Manager – Commercial Development

501 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1710

P.O. Box 530

Minneapolis, MN 55440

judy_mitchell@cpr.ca

Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC)

Michael Franchini, Executive Director

One Park Place

Albany, NY 12205

mfranchini@cdtcmpo.org

Distribution 7-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

CSX

Attn: Marco Turra, Director Passenger Operations

500 Water St. 

12th Floor

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Marco.turra@csx.com

Empire State Passengers Association (ESPA)

Attn: Bruce Becker, President

PO Box 434

Syracuse, NY 13209

bbecker@esparail.org

Empire State Passenger Association (ESPA)

Anthony Rudmann, Director of Legislative Affairs

PO Box 432

Syracuse, NY 13209

arudmann@nycap.rr.com

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Attn: Michael Longley, Transportation Industry Analyst

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Mail Stop 20)

Washington, DC 20590

michael.longley@dot.gov

Leslie Black

Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc

72 Cedar Street

Hartford, CT 06106

lblack@fhiplan.com

Friends of Rutland Rail

Attn: Herbert Russell

24 Griswold Drive

Rutland, VT 05701

herb4house@gmail.com

Distribution 7-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

New York State Department of Transportation

Passenger Operations & Planning/Amtrak Service 

Attn: Charles A. Poltenson, Transportation Analyst

50 Wolf Road, POD 5-4

Albany, NY 12232

cpoltenson@dot.state.ny.us

New York State Department of Transportation

Attn: Tim Conway

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12232

tconway@dot.state.ny.us

National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak)

Policy & Development 

Attn: William Hollister, Principle Officer

Amtrak General Offices

525 East Street

Rensselaer, NY 12144

hollisw@amtrak.com

Pan Am Railways

Attn: Roger Bergeron, VP Industrial Development

1700 Iron Horse Park

North Billerica, MA 01862

rbergeron@panamrailways.com

Pan Am Railways

Attn: Sydney Culliford

1700 Iron Horse Park

North Billerica, MA 01862

sculliford@panamrailways.com

Pan Am Railways

Attn: Ted Krug, Chief Engineer of Design and Construction

1700 Iron Horse Park

North Billerica, MA 01862

tkrug@panamrailways.com

Rutland Regional Planning Commission

Susan Schreibman, Assistant Director

Distribution 7-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

PO Box 965

Rutland, VT 05702

susan@rutlandrpc.org

Rutland Region Transportation Council

Attn: David Hoeh, Representative 

PO Box 965

Rutland, VT 05702

dchoeh@aol.com

Southwestern Vermont Rail Corridor Committee (SVRCC)

Attn: Richard Pembroke

132 Harrington Road

North Bennington, VT 05257

maryann@pemscape.com

Southwestern Vermont Rail Corridor Committee (SVRCC)

Attn: George Lerrigo

lerrigo@myfairpoint.net

Southwestern Vermont Rail Corridor Committee

Wendy Rae Woods, SVRCC Chairwoman

SVRCC2010@gmail.com

Vermont Rail System (VRS)

Attn: David Wulfson, President

One Railway Lane

Burlington, VT 05401

dwulfson@vrs.us.com

Vermont Rail System (VRS)

Attn: Selden Houghton, Assistant Vice President

One Railway Lane

Burlington, VT 05401

shoughton@vrs.us.com

Distribution 7-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Vermont Agency of Transportation

Policy, Planning, and Intermodal Development Division

Attn: Chris Cole, Director

One National Life Drive, Davis Building

Montpelier, VT, 05633

chris.cole@state.vt.us

Vermont Agency of Transportation

Policy, Planning, and Intermodal Development Division

Attn: Dan Delabruere, Rail Program Director

One National Life Drive, Davis Building

Montpelier, VT 05633

daniel.delabruere@state.vt.us

Vermont Rail Action Network (VRAN)

Attn: Christopher Parker, Executive Director

PO Box 75

Putney, VT 05346

christopher@railvermont.org

Matthew Patterson

PO Box 82

North Bennington, VT 05257

mattvermont@comcast.net

Distribution 7-5 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Distribution 7-6 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Appendices

Appendix A Ridership Study

Appendix B Capital Cost Estimate

Appendix C Mesoscale Analysis

Appendix D Section 106 Consultation

Appendix E List of Preparers

Appendices A-1 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendices A-2 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Appendix A: Ridership Study

Appendices A-3 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

7056 U.S. Route 7

P.O. Box 120

North Ferrisburgh, VT  05473

802 497‐6100    Fax   802 425‐7799

www.vhb.com

Memorandum To: Costa Pappis, VTRANS Date: May 3, 2013 (Revised January 8,2014)

Project No.: 11518.00

From: Lara Webster, VHB Re: NY‐VT Ridership and Revenue Forecasts

Revision and Update

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of the revised ridership

forecast for the NY‐VT Intercity Passenger Rail Study Area. Three alternatives were

analyzed:

1) No Build Alternative

2) Alternative 1 – New Service to SW Vermont

3) Alternative 2 – Rerouted Ethan Allen Service

For both Build alternatives, service would be provided to Rutland via the “Western

Corridor”; however Alternative 1 retains the Ethan Allen service – which provides

service to Rutland through New York – and Alternative 2 reroutes the Ethan Allen

through southwest Vermont. Both alternatives assume the routing from Albany to

Mechanicville is via Schenectady. Figures 1 and 2 below, illustrate the two Build

alternatives.

Figure 1: Alternative 1 – New Service to SW Vermont
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

2

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

Figure 2:  Alternative 2 – Rerouted Ethan Allen Service

The original ridership forecasts were developed using an analytical procedure

considering the following information:

 Existing demographic and economic conditions in Study Area;

 Forecasted demographic and economic conditions in the Study Area;

 Rail ridership of existing services in the region, specifically the ridership of the

Adirondack and Ethan Allen services operated by Amtrak;

 Ridership for station pairs served by the Adirondack and Ethan Allen services;

 Service level and fare of existing and proposed rail service in the region; and

 Travel time, operating costs and toll costs of automobile drivers or passengers in

the region

The ridership forecasting procedure is district‐to‐district based. The Study Area has

been divided into traffic districts, each representing the catchment area of an existing

or new rail station. For the purposes of the ridership analysis, the catchment areas were

defined as the 10‐mile buffer around each station. If a portion of a town fell within 10

miles of a station it was assigned to a station (Figure 3). Towns that fell within 10 miles

of two stations were assigned to the closest station.
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

3

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

Figure 3: Catchment Areas of Stations

   
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

4

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

Figure 4 provides a flow chart of the ridership forecasting methodology.  

Figure 4: Ridership Forecasting Process

Highway Travel 

Time/Cost Data

Rail Travel 

Time/Cost Data

Base Year Rail 

Ridership Data

Demographic 

Data

Dist-Dist 

Highway Time/

Cost Matrices

Dist-Dist Travel 

Time/Cost 

Matrices (No 

Build and Build 

Alts

Base Year Rail 

Dist-Dist Rail 

Trip Table

District Demo 

Growth Factors

Future Year NoBuild Rail DistDist Rail Trip

Future Year 

Baseline Rail 

Dist-Dist Rail 

Trip

Future Year 

Build Alt. Rail 

Dist-Dist Rail 

Trip Table

Station 

Ridership 

Summary
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

5

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

District Demographic Data

The demographic data (households, population and employment) were assembled for

each traffic district. The data were derived from the demographic data of the area travel

demand models received from the State of Vermont, the Capital District Transportation

Committee (CDTC) and the Adirondack/Glen Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC).  

Table 1 summarizes the existing and projected demographic data by traffic district.  

Table 1: Households and Employment by Traffic District

Station 2010

Households

2010

Employment

2030

Households

2030

Employment

Rutland 16,400 22,100 20,300 32,700

Castleton 4,900 3,900 6,500 5,900

Whitehall 9,900 8,500 10,900 9,200

Fort Edwards 28,200 34,600 31,000 36,800

Saratoga Springs 32,300 36,500 37,700 38,300

Schenectady 92,200 97,800 99,100 101,700

Manchester 5,400 6,300 7,000 12,600

North Bennington 14,000 16,100 15,300 21,100

Mechanicsville 34,500 28,100 40,200 34,400

District‐to‐District Travel Time/Cost

Matrices

The district‐to‐district travel time and travel cost matrices for the rail mode and

automobile mode were assembled based on data from:

 AMTRAK schedule and fare information

 Proposed service plans of the build alternatives

 A GIS roadway network covering the study area.  Travel times were based on

distances and assumed travel speeds.  The travel speeds were based on regional

travel demand model assumptions and posted speed limits.

 For the rail mode, the following district‐to‐district matrices were generated:

 In‐vehicle times (time spent on rail train)

 Average wait time derived from the service frequency

 Rail fare  

 Auto access and egress time

For the auto mode, the average travel time and operation cost matrices were generated

based on the highway network developed for this study.  

Base Year Rail Trip Table

The base year station to station rail trip table was constructed based on collected

ridership data provided by Amtrak. Amtrak provided the station ridership on the

Adirondack and Ethan Allen services, as well as ridership of major station‐to‐station

pairs on these lines. Based on these two sets of data, an estimation procedure was

applied to derive the complete station‐to‐station rail trip table of the two rail lines.  
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

6

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

The following table summarizes the Year 2010 annual ridership of existing rail stations

in the study region.    

Table 2: Year 2010 Baseline Station Ridership

Station Baseline

Ridership 1

Households within

10 miles of station

Rail

Ridership/HH

Rutland                    16,600 16,400 1.00

Castleton                 2,200 4,900 0.45

Whitehall 1,800 9,900 0.18

Fort Edward            8,600 28,200 0.30

Saratoga Springs    30,200 32,300 0.94

Schenectady           16,200 92,200 0.18

1

Values refer to annual boardings and alightings combined.  

Table 3 shows the results of the revised ridership forecasts.  

Table 3 – Revised Annual Boardings Forecasts

Year No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

2010 78,600 ‐‐  ‐‐ 

2030 88,200 126,000 104,100

The ridership results reflect refinements to the model to reflect the following:

 Updated (train) travel times. The travel times used in the refined model are based

on the Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) model. The infrastructure used in the model was

prepared to run the model’s Train Performance Calculator (TPC) which calculated

travel times between station based on the operating speeds of the train, the

tractive effort and braking, station stops and cumulative travel times.  The times

used for the original ridership analysis were calculated based on distance between

stations, assumed Maximum Allowable Speed (MAS), and a (conservative)

impedance factor that was applied across the board. The travel times generated as

part of the TPC run are faster than the originally calculated times.

 Updated fares. For the original iteration of the ridership analysis, fares were

matched to existing, published fares for Amtrak trips (Ethan Allen or Adirondack) of

similar trip length for the trip pairs in the study area. The refined ridership model

reflects current fares for the Ethan Allen service and incremental fares based on

average cost per mile for non‐Ethan Allen trip pairs.

   
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

7

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

Refined forecasts were completed for the No Build and the two Build alternatives still

being analyzed. Table 4 shows the updated annual boardings forecast for the years

2013 through 2017. To develop estimates for 2013 through 2017, the rate of growth

from the 2010 to 2030 No‐Build boardings was determined, and a straight line

percentage difference in ridership was assumed for the interim years for each

alternative.

Table 4 – 2013 ‐ 2017 Annual Boardings

Year No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

2013 79,980 114,100 98,350

2014 80,440 114,770 98,920

2015 80,910 115,440 99,500

2016 81,380 116,120 100,080

2017 81,860 116,800 100,670

Table 5 provides the revised annual boardings by station for the 2010 base year and

projected to 2030.

Table 5 – Revised 2030 Annual Boardings Forecasts

Station

2010 2030

No Build No Build Alternative 1   Alternative 2  

Montreal ‐ Ft.

Ticonderoga

5,200 5,700 5,700 5,700

Rutland 8,300 10,800 14,900 12,500

Castleton 1,100 1,800 1,900 0

Whitehall 900 1,000 1,000 1,000

Fort Edward 4,300 4,600 4,500 3,100

Saratoga Springs 15,100 16,600 16,500 11,300

Schenectady 8,100 8,400 10,300 9,200

Manchester  ‐‐ ‐‐ 4,400 4,400

North Bennington  ‐‐ ‐‐ 6,400 6,400

Mechanicville  ‐‐ ‐‐ 4,600 4,600

Albany/Rensselaer 3,200 3,400 3,700 3,300

Hudson ‐ NY Penn 32,400 35,900 52,100 42,600

Total 78,600 88,200 126,000 104,100

Note: Ridership numbers reflect one‐way boardings.

Table 6 presents the projected boardings by station and service. Stations that would be

served by more than one service have had their annual boardings divided approximately

equally between the services.
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

8

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

Table 6 – Annual Boardings by Service

2,010 2030

No Build No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Station

Adirondack

Ethan Allen

Adirondack

Ethan Allen

Adirondack

Ethan Allen

New Service

Adirondack

Ethan Allen

Montreal ‐ Ft.

Ticonderoga

2,600 2,600 5,700 5,700 5,700

Rutland    8,300    10,800 7,450 7,450 12,500

Castleton    1,100    1,800 1,900

Whitehall 450 450 500 500 1,000 1,000

Fort Edward 2,150 2,150 2,300 2,300 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,100

Saratoga Springs 7,550 7,550 8,300 8,300 5,500 5,500 5,500 11,300

Schenectady 4,050 4,050 4,200 4200 3,500 3,400 3,400 4,600 4,600

Manchester        4,400 4,400

North Bennington      6,400 6,400

Mechanicville        4,600 4,600

Albany/Rensselaer 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,700 1,300 1,200 1,200 1,700 1,600

Hudson ‐ NY Penn 16,200 16,200 17,950 17,950 17,400 17,350 17,350 22,400 20,200

Total 34,600 44,000 40,650 47,550 35,900 38,300 51,800 49,800 54,300

Adirondack +

Ethan Allen +

New Service

78,600 88,200 126,000 104,100

The ridership within the study area was forecasted based on the methodology

described above. Some post‐processing was completed to reassign boardings for

unlikely trip pairs – for instance while a trip from North Bennington to Castleton would

be possible via rail, it would require a transfer and would be neither time nor cost

effective. These types of trips were reassigned using professional judgment to nearby

major transfer points (i.e. Rutland, Schenectady or Albany).  

The ridership results indicate the following:

 A significant portion of the increase in boardings for the Build alternatives (41% for

Alternative 1, and 76% for Alternative 2) is generated at the new stations at

Manchester, North Bennington, and Mechanicville.

 Another significant portion of the increase in boardings for the Build alternatives is

generated by trips to the New York City metro area; this result is expected since the

New Service (or rerouted Ethan Allen) would improve access between Vermont’s

Western Corridor and New York City.   

 There is also a significant increase in boardings at Rutland station. This large

increase is expected because Rutland is the terminal station and will provide access

to a larger catchment area than the other stations in the Study Area. Providing the
Date:  May 3, 2013

Project No.:  11518.00

9

\\vhb\proj\boston\11518.00\reports\service development plan\appendicies\supporting\revised ridership forecast_tech

memo_05032013‐rev.docx

option for travel through the Western Corridor is also expected to be attractive for

passengers in both directions as it will provide a slightly shorter travel time.

 Differences in boardings between the two Build alternatives are primarily seen in

those stations that will lose a frequency of service (Ft. Edward, Saratoga Springs),

the model indicates that there is a mode shift for many of these “lost” trips.  

 At both Schenectady and Rutland Stations a moderate number of additional

boardings are anticipated for Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2. The difference in

boardings is greater at Schenectady Station because it is anticipated that many of

the riders that currently use Castleton Station would instead access the system at

Rutland Station under Alternative 2 – this behavior causes a “bump” in boardings at

Rutland Station for Alternative 2.  

Projected Fare Revenue

Annual revenue was calculated in the ridership model for the year 2030. The ridership

forecast procedure included use of a station‐to‐station trip matrix, with forecast

ridership calculated for each pairing. Total fare revenues were calculated by multiplying

the station‐to‐station trip matrix with the attendant station‐to‐station fare matrix. The

forecasted revenue was prepared using current fares for existing station‐to‐station trips

(as accessed on the Amtrak website) and developing a similar fare structure for the

proposed new stations based on distance between origin and destination.  Table 7

shows the projected 2030 annual revenues as well as adjusted 2013 ticket revenue

projections based on the Pro Forma revenues shown in the PRIIA 209 Cost Methodology

that has been prepared for the Ethan Allen Service. The adjusted revenue estimates

were calculated by factoring the 2030 projections to the actual ticket revenues from

FY’2010‐11 (as reported in the 209 Cost Methodology).

Table 7 – Fare Revenue Forecasts

Revenue Forecasts No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

2030 Revenue   $4,371,000 $6,566,000 $5,504,000

2013 Revenue   $2,839,000 $4,264,000 $3,574,000

Table 8 provides the annual revenue forecast for each alternative for the years 2013

through 2017. Similar to the interim year ridership forecasts, the interim year revenue

forecasts are based on a straight line extrapolation of the difference between the

calculated 2010 and 2030 revenues.

Table 8 – 2013 – 2017 Annual Fare Revenue Forecasts

Year No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2

2013    $ 2,839,000    $ 6,565,600     $ 3,574,464  

2014   $ 2,929,129     $ 6,700,976    $ 3,687,942  

2015    $ 3,019,259    $ 6,836,351   $ 3,801,420  

2016    $ 3,109,388     $ 6,971,727     $ 3,914,898  

2017    $ 3,199,518     $ 7,107,102     $ 4,028,376  
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendices A-4 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Appendix B: Capital Cost Estimate

Appendices A-5 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
1 

\\mabos\projects\11518.00\docs\VARIOUS\Alternatives Analysis\Phase Two Analysis\Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_09262012.doc 

VHB 

7056 U.S. Route 7 

P.O Box 120 

North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 

802.497.6100  Fax 802.425.7799 

www.vhb.com 

Memorandum To: Costa Pappis, VTRANS Date: March 29,2012 

Project No.: 11518.00 

From: VHB Re: NY-VT Final Capital Cost Estimate 

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the revised capital cost estimates for the NY-VT 

Intercity Passenger Rail Study Area. There are two components to the capital cost estimates – costs 

for track improvements, and station costs. This document provides the following: 

 A summary of the alternatives estimated and the segments used in this estimate. 

 A description of the work defined for each alternative for each segment. 

 A description of the unit costs and their development for use in this estimate. 

 A summary capital cost estimate for each alternative. 

ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED & ANALYSIS SEGMENTS 

Three alternatives were analyzed: 

1) No Build Alternative 

2) Alternative 1 – New Service to SW Vermont 

3) Alternative 2 – Rerouted Ethan Allen Service 

Foヴ Hoth Build alteヴミati┗es, seヴ┗iIe ┘ould He pヴo┗ided to Rutlaミd ┗ia the さWesteヴミ Coヴヴidoヴざ; 

Alternative 1 retains the Ethan Allen service on its current alignment and adds a new service through 

southwest Vermont, while Alternative 2 reroutes the Ethan Allen through southwest Vermont. Both 

alternatives assume the routing from Albany to Mechanicville is via Schenectady. Figures 1 and 2

below, illustrate the two Build alternatives. 
2 

\\MABOSDATA\projects\11518.00\tech\Cost Estimates\Phase 2 Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_Revised_071013.docx 

Figure 1: Alternative 1 Figure 2: Alternative 2 

To run the proposed new/rerouted service from Albany to Rutland via Schenectady and the Western 

Corridor (shown in blue in Figures 1 and 2), various infrastructure improvements are required to meet 

the targeted Maximum Allowable Speed (MAS) of 60MPH and provide sufficient capacity in the 

system to eliminate conflicts with the freight operations. Preliminary engineering has been completed 

to identify the necessary improvements for each alternative. 

For the purposes of the preparing the capital cost estimate, the existing rail corridors in the project 

study area were divided into 10 segments, shown in Figure 3. Improvements are required for 

segments 2, 6, 8, 9 and 10 to accommodate the new or rerouted service through the Western 

Corridor of Vermont that are proposed in the Build Alternatives. The same capital improvements are 

required for Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 1 provides a summary of the track improvements by segment. 

Segment 1 was not included in this table because it assumed no improvements on this segment are 

needed on both the signal and rail systems. Segment 5 was not included in the table because it has 

been eliminated from the study.
3 

\\MABOSDATA\projects\11518.00\tech\Cost Estimates\Phase 2 Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_Revised_071013.docx 

Figure 3: Segments Used in Cost Estimating 
4 

\\mabos\projects\11518.00\docs\VARIOUS\Alternatives Analysis\Phase Two Analysis\Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_09262012.doc 

Table 1: Track Improvements 

# Segment Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

2

Schenectady 

to CPF 480 

(Glenville) 

 Αヰヰ’ of ミe┘ マaiミliミe foヴ ミe┘ aligミマeミt thヴough CPF ヴΒヰ, all e┝istiミg PuHliI Gヴade Iヴossiミgs ┘ill ヴeケuiヴe ┘aヴミiミg s┞steマ 

modifications 

 No tヴaIk ┘oヴk ヴeケuiヴed oミ e┝istiミg マaiミliミe, ヵヰ’ ┘ide crossings assumed 

 Signal system costs include electronic in-track signal system and interlocking tie-ins 

 Aplaus Kill River Bridge needs upgrade to run double track; two turnouts at Aplaus Kill River Bridge will be retired 

6 

CPF 480 

(Glenville) to 

Mechanicville 

 2.5 miles of new sidings for congestion relief, all existing Public Grade crossings will require warning system modifications 

 Signal system costs include electronic in-track signal system and interlocking tie-ins 

 Two #20 crossovers, one #15 crossover, three #20 turnouts, and one #15 turnout needed; two turnouts to be retired 

 Culvert at 1528+00 to be extended past proposed siding 

7 

Mechanicville 

to Hoosick 

 ン ミe┘ sidiミgs totaliミg ヵ.ヴ マiles, e┝istiミg ヲ sidiミgs ミeed ミo ┘oヴk, ヵヰ’ ┘ide Iヴossiミgs assumed 

 $4M for updates to existing signal system, all existing Public Grade crossings will require warning system modifications 

 8 new #20 turnouts needed for sidings 

 800' of track needs to be realigned in order to fit #20 for station 

 Grade crossing at Vial Ave will be made into double track to accommodate station siding at Mechanicville 

 Bridge at Anthony's Kill (Bridge 186.93) requires a bridge extension/modification to facilitate second track 

 A high platform passenger station in Mechanicville 

8 

Hoosick to 

North 

Bennington 

 E┝istiミg マaiミliミe is Iuヴヴeミtl┞ ヱヰヰ% ┘elded ヴail ふミo ヴail upgヴade ミeededぶ, ヵヰ’ ┘ide Iヴossiミgs assumed 

 Every 12th tie replaced, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of curvature to meet increased speeds 

 All existing Public Grade crossings will require warning system modifications 

 1 mile of new siding required for congestion relief 

 Two new #20 turnouts for new siding, existing bridge will require some work 

 Culvert at 3143+00 needs to be extended past proposed siding 

 3100' of new siding for station at North Bennington 

 1350' of realigned track needed to allow space for siding inside the ROW 

 Bridge costs included to rehabilitate or replace one (1) bridge identified as being in Poor condition based on inspections 

 Two #20 turnouts needed for station siding 

 Additional grade crossing for siding at Bank Street in North Bennington 

 A high platform station in North Bennington including the historic station building and expanded parking 
5 

\\MABOSDATA\projects\11518.00\tech\Cost Estimates\Phase 2 Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_Revised_071013.docx 

Table 1: Track Improvements (Continued) 

# Segment Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

9 

North 

Bennington to 

Manchester 

 Existing mainline is currently welded rail MP 2.0 - MP 13.4 

 Existing mainline is currently Jointed 105# Rail MP13.4-MP16.0 & MP 19.7- MP23.0 that requires upgrades and new welded 

rail

 Rail Het┘eeミ MPヱヶ.ヰ to MP ヱΓ.Α is ヱヱヵ# Βヰ’ leミgths that requires welding 

 All existing Public Grade crossings will require warning system modifications, ヵヰ’ ┘ide Iヴossiミgs assuマed

 Every 12th tie is replaced MP 2.0 -MP 13.4, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of curvature to meet 

increased speeds 

 Every 3rd tie is replaced MP13.4-MP 23.0, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of curvature to meet 

increased speeds 

 Bridge costs included to rehabilitate or replace three (3) bridges identified as being in Poor condition based on inspections 

 VTR will allow increased passenger service without new signal system 

 $1M for new siding to accommodate high level platform station at Manchester 

 1350' of realigned track needed to accommodate a 425' high level platform 

 Relocation of private grade crossing Miles Lumber (MP 23.27) to accommodate siding 

10

Manchester to 

Rutland 

 Existing mainline needs upgrading over entire length (30.4 miles of welded rail at 750k/mile) 

 Shift track within railroad right-of-┘a┞ iミ MaミIhesteヴ o┗eヴ leミgth of ヵ,ΑンΓ’

 ヵヰ’ ┘ide Iヴossiミgs assumed, all existing Public Grade crossings will require warning system modifications 

 Every 3rd tie is replaced, 50% of segment requires additional surfacing and aligning of curvature to meet increased speeds 

 Bridge costs included to rehabilitate or replace three (3) bridges identified as being in Poor condition based on inspections 

 VTR will allow increased passenger service without new signal system 

 ReplaIe sidiミg at MP ンヶ.ヱヵ ふヶヰヱ’ぶ, additioミ of sidiミg foヴ statioミ ΑヶΑ’ aミd additioミ of ン,ヰヰヰ’ sidiミg

 2 turnouts needed for new siding, 1 turnout for replaced siding and 2 for station 

 “idiミg eミtヴaミIe マo┗ed HaIk ヵヰヰ’ to a┗oid iミteヴseItioミ at Bヴookl┞ミ Road

 A high level platform station in Manchester 
6 

\\mabos\projects\11518.00\docs\VARIOUS\Alternatives Analysis\Phase Two Analysis\Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_09262012.doc 

UNIT COSTS 

The HasiI tool foヴ pヴiIiミg alteヴミati┗es is the t┞piIal oヴ さunitざ Iost H┞ s┞steマ eleマeミt. The first task in 

developing unit Iosts is to pヴepaヴe a list of ┘oヴk iteマs oヴ さliHヴaヴ┞ざ of Iost iteマs iミIluded it the sIope 

of work of this project. Each unit cost includes: labor, burden, construction equipment usage, 

マateヴials, peヴマaミeミt eケuipマeミt aミd IoミtヴaItoヴ’s o┗eヴhead aミd pヴofit. The unit costs are then 

developed for each of the typical cross-sections anticipated for this project. The following elements 

were used to develop this estimate: 

 New Mainline/

 Siding Track 

 Upgrade Mainline Track 

 Shift Mainline Track 

 Stations 

 Signal System Cost 

 Grade Crossing - Public 

 Grade Crossing - Private 

 Grade Crossing - Warning System 

 Grade Crossing Signage -All 

 Undergrade Bridges 

 Turnouts 

 Turnouts to be Retired 

 Clearing and Filling 

 Culvert Extension

Table 2 provides a brief description of each system elements and unit costs. 
7 

\\MABOSDATA\projects\11518.00\tech\Cost Estimates\Phase 2 Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_Revised_071013.docx 

Table 2: Unit Costs 

System Element Description Unit Cost

New Mainline/Siding 

Track 

New wood tie track construction, 115# CWR with new 

plates and resilient fasteners. $200/TF 

Upgrade Mainline Track Spot tie replacements as required per track condition, 115# 

CWR with new plates and resilient fasteners. Varies 

Shift Mainline Track 

Mainline track that requires realignment and shifting to 

meet the increased speeds and proposed alignment 

configurations.

$150/TF 

Stations 

The cost estimate for each station was developed 

individually to reflect the varying conditions of each station 

loIatioミ. “tatioミs iミIlude a high le┗el ふヴΒざぶ platfoヴマ of ヴヲヵ’ 

H┞ ヱヵ’ ┘ith staiヴs aミd aミ aIIess ヴaマp to マeet ADA 

requirements.

Varies – See 

Tables 3-5

Signal System Cost Cost of providing a basic signal system to support the 

desired passenger train speeds. Lump Sum 

Grade Crossing – Public Installation/replacement of the track panel through the 

crossing and the associated typical roadway paving work. $3,000/ TF 

Grade Crossing – Private Installation/replacement of a timber plank crossing for 

private use. $5,000 EA 

Grade Crossing - 

Warning System 

Installation and upgrade of the signal system to 

accommodate the increased passenger train speeds. $300,000 EA 

Grade Crossing Signage -

All Installation of all required crossing warning signage. $5,000 EA

Undergrade Bridges

“tヴuItuヴal ヴepaiヴs to Hヴidges listed as iミ さpooヴざ Ioミditioミ 

required for passenger trains. All bridges not listed as 

さpooヴざ ┘e assuマed to ミeed ミo work.

$500,000 EA

Turnouts Addition of new turnouts required to support operational 

needs.

Varies by 

type.

Turnouts to be retired Removal of turnouts. $70,000 EA

Clearing and Filling Clearing and grubbing, required fill slopes for track 

alignment, potential ditching. Lump Sum

Culvert Extension Extension of culverts to support the additional siding tracks 

or relocated track alignment. Lump Sum

Table 3 shows the total costs by major system elements and Table 4 shows the cost breakdown by 

analysis segment. 
8 

\\mabos\projects\11518.00\docs\VARIOUS\Alternatives Analysis\Phase Two Analysis\Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_09262012.doc 

Table 3: Total Costs, by Major System Element 

System Element 

Total1 Mainline 

Improvements Crossings Stations Bridges Signal System Special Trackwork 

Clearing and 

Drainage 

$ 55,730,050 $ 23,110,000 $5,290,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 16,000,000 $6,035,000 $ 1,579,060 $ $112,244,110 

1. Costs include: labor, burden, construction equipment usage, materials, station site acquisition, peヴマaミeミt eケuipマeミt aミd IoミtヴaItoヴ’s o┗eヴhead aミd pヴofit. Does ミot iミIlude IoミtiミgeミI┞ allo┘aミIes. 

Table 4: Total, Costs, by Analysis Segment

 

 

 

New Siding Track Upgrade Mainline Track Shift Mainline Track Signal 

System 

Grade Crossing - 

Public 

Grade Crossing - 

Private 

Grade Crossing - 

Warning System 

Grade Crossing 

Signage -All Undergrade Bridges Turnouts/Turnout Removal

Clearing & 

Filling 

Culvert 

Extension 

Stations 

Total

1

$200 TF Varies TF $150 TF LS $3,000 TF $5,000 EA $150,000 EA $5,000 LS $500,000 EA

Quant Cost Quant. Cost Quant Cost Quant Cost Quant Cost Quant. Cost Quant Cost Quant. Cost Quant Cost Cost Cost Cost 

Segment 1 - CSX 

(SchenectadyAlbany) 

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Segment 2 - CPR 

(CPF 480-

Schenectady) 

700 $140,000 0 $0 1,000 $150,000 $4,000,000 200 $600,000 0 $0 4 $600,000 4 $20,000 1 $500,000 0/2 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,150,000

Segment 6 - CPR 

(MechanicvilleCPF 480) 

13,200 $2,640,000 0 $0 7,000 $1,050,000 $8,000,000 400 $1,200,000 5 $25,000 8 $1,200,000 13 $65,000 0 $0 10/2 $2,370,000 $431,500 $25,000 $1,550,000 $18,556,500

Segment 7 - PAR 

(HoosickMechanicville) 28,500 $5,700,000 0 $0 800 $120,000 $4,000,000 600 $1,800,000 4 $20,000 12 $1,800,000 16 $80,000 1 $500,000 8/0 $1,880,000 $877,800 $0 $0 $16,777,800

Segment 8 - VTR 

(No. BenningtonHoosick) 

8,100 $1,620,000 9,240 $554,4001 1,350 $202,500 $0 200 $600,000 2 $10,000 4 $600,000 6 $30,000 1 $500,000 4/0 $940,000 $219,760 $25,000 $2,290,000 $7,591,660

Segment 9 - VTR 

(Manchester-N. 

Bennington) 

0 $0 110,880 $8,995,4002 1,350 $202,500 $0 1,000 $3,000,000 26 $280,000 20 $3,000,000 46 $230,000 3 $1,500,000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,207,900

Segment 10 - VTR 

(RutlandManchester) 

4,368 $873,600 163,680 $32,620,8003 5,739 $860,850 $0 1,200 $3,600,000 63 $315,000 24 $3,600,000 87 $435,000 3 $1,500,000 3/0 $705,000 $0 $0 $1,450,000 $45,960,250 

1 – Unit price = $15/TF (track foot) 

2 – Unit price = $30/TF. Includes $244,000 for new welds, and $4,425,000 for 5.9 miles of welded rail. 

3 – Unit price= $60/TF. Includes $22,800,000 for 30.4 miles of new welded rail. 
9 

\\mabos\projects\11518.00\docs\VARIOUS\Alternatives Analysis\Phase Two Analysis\Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_09262012.doc 

Station Costs

New stations are proposed to be constructed in Mechanicville, North Bennington, and Manchester for 

both Build alternatives. All stations will be full leミgth ふヴヲヵ’ぶ high le┗el platfoヴマ statioミs to Ioマpl┞ ┘ith 

ADA requirements. 

The general development plan for each station calls for a Class V station that includes: 

• Platform for ingress/egress access to trains; 

• Parking lot with 50 spaces; 

• Auto pick-up/drop-off area; and 

• Sheltered Waiting Area. 

Tables 5 through 7 provide a breakdown of the station cost estimates for each station location – the 

total station costs are included in Tables 3 and 4. 

Table 5: Mechanicville Station Cost Estimate 

Area Calculations

Hot Mix Asphalt (driveway/parking) 25210 SF

Cement Concrete Sidewalk 6650 SF

Loam & Seed / Landscaping 4130 SF

Platform (425-ft) / stairs / ramps 6375 SF

TOTAL AREA 42030 SF

Cost Estimate 

Unit 

Costs Unit Quantity Cost 

Property Acquisition (60,000SF) $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 

Excavation (assume 1-ft cut) $30 CY 1557 $46,710 

Grading & Compacting $5 SY 4670 $23,350 

Gravel Borrow (pavement & sidewalks) $35 CY 787 $27,545

Crushed Stone $60 CY 311 $18,660

Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement (3.5" thick) $120 TON 549 $65,880 

Cement Concrete $60 SY 739 $44,340

Loam Borrow (4" thick) $50 CY 51 $2,550

Seeding $5 SY 459 $2,295 

Landscaping (12 trees & shrubs) $8,000 LS 1 $8,000 

Curbing $40 FT 1560 $62,400 

Drainage $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 

Parking Area Lighting $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 

Station Signage $40,000 LS 1 $40,000 

Highway Signage $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 

Platform 

 High Level Platform $140 SF 6375 $892,500 

 Platform Lighting $75,000 LS 1 $75,000 

Shelter Structure $30,000 LS 1 $30,000 

TOTAL COST $1,544,230 

TOTAL COST (rounded) $1,550,000 
10

\\MABOSDATA\projects\11518.00\tech\Cost Estimates\Phase 2 Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_Revised_071013.docx 

Table 6: North Bennington Station Cost Estimate 

Area Calculations 

Hot Mix Asphalt (driveway/parking) 27210 SF

Cement Concrete Sidewalk 8430 SF

Loam & Seed / Landscaping 6490 SF

Platform (425-ft) / stairs / ramps 6375 SF

TOTAL AREA 48170 SF

Cost Estimate 

Unit 

Costs 

Unit Quantity Cost 

Property Acquisition (100,000SF) $500,000 LS 1 $500,000 

Excavation (assume 1-ft cut) $30 CY 1784 $53,520 

Grading & Compacting $5 SY 5352 $26,760 

Gravel Borrow (pavement & sidewalks) $35 CY 880 $30,800 

Crushed Stone $60 CY 336 $20,160

Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement (3.5" thick) $120 TON 593 $71,160

Cement Concrete $60 SY 937 $56,200 

Loam Borrow (4" thick) $50 CY 80 $4,000 

Seeding $5 SY 721 $3,605 

Landscaping (12 trees & shrubs) $8,000 LS 1 $8,000 

Curbing $40 FT 1750 $70,000 

Drainage $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 

Parking Area Lighting $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 

Station Signage $40,000 LS 1 $40,000 

Highway Signage $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 

Platform 

 High Level Platform $140 SF 6375 $892,500 

 Platform Lighting $75,000 LS 1 $75,000 

Shelter Structure $30,000 LS 1 $30,000 

Allowance for Historic N. Bennington Station $300,000 

TOTAL COST $2,286,725 

TOTAL COST (rounded) $2,290,000 
11

\\MABOSDATA\projects\11518.00\tech\Cost Estimates\Phase 2 Cost Estimates\Cost Estimate_Tech Memo_Revised_071013.docx 

Table 7: Manchester Station Cost Estimate 

Area Calculations 

Hot Mix Asphalt (driveway/parking) 26760 SF

Cement Concrete Sidewalk 5450 SF

Loam & Seed / Landscaping 3800 SF

Platform (425-ft) / stairs / ramps 6375 SF

TOTAL AREA 42050 SF

Cost Estimate 

Unit 

Costs 

Unit Quantity Cost 

Excavation (assume 1-ft cut) $30 CY 1557 $46,710

Grading & Compacting $5 SY 4672 $23,360 

Gravel Borrow (pavement & sidewalks) $35 CY 795 $27,825

Crushed Stone $60 CY 330 $19,800

Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement (3.5" thick) $120 TON 583 $69,960

Cement Concrete $60 SY 606 $36,360

Loam Borrow (4" thick) $50 CY 47 $2,350

Seeding $5 SY 422 $2,110 

Landscaping (12 trees & shrubs) $8,000 LS 1 $8,000 

Curbing $40 FT 1650 $66,000 

Drainage $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 

Parking Area Lighting $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 

Station Signage $40,000 LS 1 $40,000 

Highway Signage $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 

Platform 

 High Level Platform $140 SF 6375 $892,500

 Platform Lighting $75,000 LS 1 $75,000 

Shelter Structure $30,000 LS 1 $30,000 

TOTAL COST $1,444,975

TOTAL COST (rounded) $1,450,000 
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendices A-6 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Appendix C: Mesoscale Analysis

Appendices A-7 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
Ny-VT Bi=-State Rail Air Quality Appendix 

Air Quality 

Technical Data 



 MOBILE 6.2 Files 

o Sample Input Files 

o Output Files 

 Train Emissions 

 Mesoscale Results 
MOBILE 6.2 Files
Ny-VT Bi=-State Rail Air Quality Appendix 

MOBILE 6.2 Sample Input Files 
NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MOBILE6.2 EMISSION FACTORS 

FOR REGIONAL, MESOSCALE, and CMAQ PROJECT 

EMISSION CALCULATIONS 

PART A 

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE BUREAU 

April 2008
April 2008 Page A-2 

New York State Department of Transportation 

 

Vehicle Distribution by NYSDOT Region 

NYSDOT Region 1 

 Functional Class 

 Veh. Type 01 02/06 07/08/09 11/12 14/16 17/19 

 LDGV 40.16% 41.78% 43.23% 42.17% 45.33% 46.98% 

 LDGT1 6.65% 6.93% 7.17% 6.98% 7.51% 7.79% 

 LDGT2 22.25% 23.17% 23.97% 23.38% 25.12% 26.05% 

 LDGT3 10.16% 12.06% 11.65% 12.81% 10.16% 9.27% 

 LDGT4 4.61% 5.48% 5.29% 5.82% 4.61% 4.21% 

 HDGV2B 3.08% 1.85% 1.44% 1.47% 1.17% 0.85% 

 HDGV3 1.16% 0.70% 0.55% 0.55% 0.44% 0.32% 

 HDGV4 0.33% 0.19% 0.16% 0.15% 0.13% 0.09% 

 HDGV5 0.44% 0.27% 0.21% 0.21% 0.17% 0.12% 

 HDGV6 0.35% 0.21% 0.17% 0.16% 0.13% 0.09% 

 HDGV7 0.34% 0.21% 0.16% 0.16% 0.13% 0.10% 

 HDGV8A 0.55% 0.33% 0.26% 0.26% 0.21% 0.15% 

 LDDV 0.06% 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 

 LDDT12 0.11% 0.11% 0.12% 0.11% 0.12% 0.13% 

 LDDT34 1.03% 1.21% 1.17% 1.28% 1.03% 0.94% 

 HDDV2B 0.55% 0.33% 0.26% 0.26% 0.21% 0.15% 

 HDDV3 0.37% 0.22% 0.17% 0.18% 0.14% 0.10% 

 HDDV4 0.24% 0.15% 0.11% 0.12% 0.09% 0.07% 

 HDDV5 0.32% 0.19% 0.15% 0.15% 0.12% 0.09% 

 HDDV6 0.60% 0.36% 0.28% 0.29% 0.23% 0.17% 

 HDDV7 0.80% 0.48% 0.38% 0.38% 0.30% 0.22% 

 HDDV8A 2.50% 1.50% 1.17% 1.19% 0.95% 0.69% 

 HDDV8B 1.53% 0.92% 0.72% 0.73% 0.58% 0.42% 

 HDGB 0.19% 0.11% 0.09% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 

 HDDBT 0.57% 0.34% 0.27% 0.27% 0.22% 0.16% 

 HDDBS 0.57% 0.34% 0.27% 0.27% 0.22% 0.16% 

 MC 0.48% 0.50% 0.51% 0.50% 0.54% 0.56% 

 _____________________________________________________________________________ 

 Sum 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 

 

 

 

Note: 01 - Rural Interstate 

 02 - Rural Principal Arterial 

 06 - Rural Minor Arterial 

 07 - Rural Major Collectors 

 08 - Rural Minor Collectors 

 09 - Rural Local 

 11 - Urban Interstate 

 12 - Urban Freeways and Expressways 

 14 - Urban Principal Arterial 

 16 - Urban Minor Arterial 

 17 - Urban Collectors 

 19 - Urban Local 
April 2008 Page B-1 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Sample Input File – Albany County, Summer 2010 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : 

*CMAQ Table Input File - Albany For Year 2010, Summer 

POLLUTANTS : HC NOX CO 

PARTICULATES : 

AIR TOXICS : 

REPORT FILE : cmaq2008\output\summer\alb10sum.out 

DATABASE OUTPUT : 

EMISSION TABLE : cmaq2008\output\summer\alb10sum.tbl 

WITH FIELDNAMES : 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2222 2221 22 

DATABASE VEHICLES : 22222 22222222 2 222 22222222 222 

 

RUN DATA 

EXPRESS HC AS VOC : 

EXPAND BUS EFS : 

EXPAND LDT EFS : 

EXPAND HDDV EFS : 

EXPAND HDGV EFS : 

EXPAND EXHAUST : 

EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : 

 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 85 08 22222 22211111 1 11 098 22212222 

I/M DESC FILE : cmaq2008\nysparam\im_mile\NYVIPup.d 

START DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\start\001sdist.d 

REG DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\reg\07_UPreg.d 

 

DIESEL FRACTIONS : 

0.0000 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0029 0.0029 0.0014 0.0012 0.0016 0.0019 

0.0006 0.0009 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0.0011 0.0036 0.0018 0.0017 0.0001 

0.0094 0.0108 0.0304 0.0413 0.0105 

0.0003 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0036 0.0023 

0.0041 0.0037 0.0048 0.0058 0.0064 0.0071 0.0098 0.0112 0.0131 0.0120 

0.0184 0.0309 0.0385 0.0366 0.0154 

0.0003 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0036 0.0023 

0.0041 0.0037 0.0048 0.0058 0.0064 0.0071 0.0098 0.0112 0.0131 0.0120 

0.0184 0.0309 0.0384 0.0365 0.0154 

0.0519 0.0861 0.0642 0.0658 0.0821 0.0849 0.0984 0.0971 0.1244 0.0696 

0.1397 0.1525 0.1225 0.1258 0.1560 0.1425 0.1369 0.1415 0.0949 0.0797 

0.1085 0.1341 0.1171 0.0926 0.0197 

0.0519 0.0861 0.0642 0.0659 0.0821 0.0850 0.0985 0.0971 0.1244 0.0697 

0.1398 0.1527 0.1222 0.1262 0.1562 0.1420 0.1373 0.1423 0.0951 0.0791 

0.1090 0.1328 0.1159 0.0928 0.0197 

0.3506 0.3127 0.2520 0.2307 0.2380 0.2138 0.1930 0.1880 0.2387 0.1668 

0.2491 0.2248 0.2415 0.2296 0.2663 0.2279 0.2079 0.2194 0.1588 0.1014 

0.1248 0.1726 0.1403 0.0970 0.0430 

0.6377 0.5670 0.4208 0.3692 0.4220 0.3649 0.3637 0.3657 0.3837 0.2900 

0.3238 0.2825 0.2722 0.2855 0.3306 0.2814 0.3266 0.3211 0.2410 0.1998 

0.1800 0.1892 0.1582 0.1505 0.1167 

0.8180 0.7137 0.6920 0.6380 0.5113 0.5782 0.5520 0.5558 0.5611 0.4339 

0.5057 0.6199 0.4993 0.4703 0.5187 0.5099 0.5144 0.4363 0.4785 0.2970 

0.2156 0.2765 0.3313 0.3694 0.1747 

0.7772 0.7649 0.6951 0.6601 0.6088 0.6430 0.7085 0.6616 0.6922 0.6582 

0.6645 0.7319 0.7178 0.6529 0.6562 0.5987 0.6685 0.5668 0.5403 0.4159 

0.3716 0.4394 0.3872 0.3380 0.1570 

0.9623 0.8878 0.8541 0.8277 0.8470 0.9243 0.8776 0.8977 0.8925 0.8565 

0.8630 0.8534 0.8079 0.8387 0.7630 0.8012 0.7293 0.8268 0.7666 0.7107 

0.6456 0.7093 0.6274 0.6960 0.3030 

0.9922 0.9756 0.9691 0.9575 0.9616 0.8961 0.9701 0.9346 0.9380 0.9099 
April 2008 Page B-2 

New York State Department of Transportation 

0.8859 0.8935 0.8737 0.8965 0.8780 0.8879 0.8443 0.8003 0.7127 0.6970 

0.6766 0.6430 0.6929 0.6678 0.2963 

0.9959 0.9923 0.9859 0.9847 0.9887 0.9746 0.9857 0.9780 0.9510 0.9672 

0.9505 0.9577 0.9453 0.9310 0.9423 0.9573 0.9476 0.9348 0.9319 0.9235 

0.9228 0.8940 0.9125 0.9202 0.6233 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

0.9022 0.8733 0.9032 0.9028 0.8941 0.9110 0.9024 0.9049 0.9100 0.8941 

0.9005 0.8441 0.9133 0.9263 0.9223 0.9015 0.8970 0.8741 0.8621 0.8349 

0.7868 0.6030 0.4725 0.4368 0.0359 

 

VMT BY HOUR : cmaq2008\nysparam\hvmt\001_hvmt.def 

SEASON : 1 

 

HOURLY TEMPERATURES: 68.5 71.6 74.7 77.7 81.2 83.6 86.5 87.8 89.6 89.7 88.7 88.2 

 86.6 82.6 80.0 77.5 75.7 74.5 70.7 69.5 68.4 67.7 66.7 66.5 

 

T2 EXH PHASE-IN : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2EXH.d 

T2 EVAP PHASE-IN : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2EVAP.d 

T2 CERT : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2CERT.d 

94+ LDG IMP : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\LEV2.d 

REBUILD EFFECTS : 0.05 

 

SCENARIO RECORD : Scenario No.: 1; Summer 2010; FREEWAY ; Speed: 2.5 mph 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

RELATIVE HUMIDITY : 86.6 79.4 71.9 67.2 61.8 57.8 53.0 51.1 47.7 48.3 50.0 51.2 

 54.6 61.8 67.7 73.1 75.6 78.9 76.0 80.5 84.0 86.0 88.6 87.5 

BAROMETRIC PRES : 29.92 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15 

FUEL PROGRAM : 4 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

FUEL RVP : 8.6 

GAS AROMATIC% : 28.0 

GAS OLEFIN% : 12.0 

GAS BENZENE% : 1.00 

E200 : 48 

E300 : 82 

OXYGENATE : MTBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETOH 5.00 1.00 

 : TAME 0.00 0.00 

AVERAGE SPEED : 2.5 FREEWAY 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

END OF RUN 
April 2008 Page B-3 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Sample Input File – Suffolk County, Summer 2010 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : 

*CMAQ Table Input File - Suffolk For Year 2010, Summer 

POLLUTANTS : HC NOX CO 

PARTICULATES : 

AIR TOXICS : 

REPORT FILE : cmaq2008\output\summer\suf10sum.out 

DATABASE OUTPUT : 

EMISSION TABLE : cmaq2008\output\summer\suf10sum.tbl 

WITH FIELDNAMES : 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2222 2221 22 

DATABASE VEHICLES : 22222 22222222 2 222 22222222 222 

 

RUN DATA 

EXPRESS HC AS VOC : 

EXPAND BUS EFS : 

EXPAND LDT EFS : 

EXPAND HDDV EFS : 

EXPAND HDGV EFS : 

EXPAND EXHAUST : 

EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : 

 

STAGE II REFUELING : 

89 1 77 77 

 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 85 08 22222 22222222 2 11 098 22212222 

I/M DESC FILE : cmaq2008\nysparam\im_mile\NYim10.d 

START DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\start\103sdist.d 

REG DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\reg\07_NYreg.d 

 

DIESEL FRACTIONS : 

0.0000 0.0004 0.0006 0.0003 0.0010 0.0016 0.0006 0.0007 0.0017 0.0014 

0.0008 0.0011 0.0013 0.0003 0.0011 0.0016 0.0035 0.0013 0.0009 0.0005 

0.0183 0.0114 0.0554 0.0778 0.0223 

0.0016 0.0061 0.0041 0.0036 0.0048 0.0068 0.0049 0.0083 0.0103 0.0083 

0.0086 0.0070 0.0094 0.0113 0.0139 0.0127 0.0125 0.0170 0.0146 0.0153 

0.0241 0.0268 0.0527 0.0544 0.0177 

0.0016 0.0061 0.0041 0.0036 0.0048 0.0068 0.0049 0.0083 0.0103 0.0083 

0.0086 0.0070 0.0094 0.0113 0.0139 0.0127 0.0125 0.0170 0.0146 0.0153 

0.0241 0.0268 0.0528 0.0542 0.0177 

0.0225 0.0614 0.0555 0.0528 0.0682 0.0842 0.0912 0.1079 0.0978 0.0804 

0.1241 0.1087 0.1183 0.1381 0.1494 0.1351 0.1562 0.1830 0.1536 0.1329 

0.1541 0.1406 0.1242 0.1524 0.0249 

0.0225 0.0614 0.0555 0.0528 0.0682 0.0842 0.0912 0.1079 0.0978 0.0804 

0.1239 0.1084 0.1184 0.1378 0.1495 0.1354 0.1542 0.1834 0.1531 0.1327 

0.1554 0.1403 0.1242 0.1507 0.0249 

0.1936 0.2375 0.1950 0.1705 0.1804 0.1894 0.1605 0.1690 0.2212 0.1775 

0.2338 0.2079 0.2658 0.2557 0.2708 0.3103 0.2829 0.2189 0.2192 0.1986 

0.1657 0.1773 0.0928 0.0851 0.0451 

0.5558 0.5084 0.3952 0.3629 0.3698 0.4342 0.4533 0.4914 0.5084 0.5171 

0.4996 0.5358 0.4894 0.5156 0.5323 0.5455 0.5701 0.5193 0.4252 0.3763 

0.4018 0.3299 0.2308 0.3441 0.1379 

0.8890 0.8294 0.7917 0.8012 0.7991 0.7831 0.8067 0.7966 0.7907 0.8175 

0.8036 0.8673 0.8173 0.7571 0.7708 0.7545 0.5779 0.5126 0.5122 0.2912 

0.3692 0.3288 0.1712 0.3333 0.0989 

0.9184 0.9028 0.8759 0.8788 0.8908 0.9130 0.9284 0.9077 0.9362 0.9290 

0.9044 0.9305 0.9259 0.8707 0.8722 0.9071 0.8529 0.6102 0.6408 0.4312 

0.3815 0.2955 0.4438 0.3692 0.1678 

0.9745 0.9107 0.9425 0.9339 0.9558 0.9518 0.9642 0.9521 0.9731 0.9361 
April 2008 Page B-4 

New York State Department of Transportation 

0.9142 0.9387 0.8735 0.9404 0.9100 0.8715 0.8892 0.8361 0.7668 0.7714 

0.7968 0.6946 0.7019 0.7152 0.2342 

0.9917 0.9878 0.9832 0.9899 0.9899 0.9800 0.9828 0.9802 0.9789 0.9783 

0.9224 0.9688 0.9599 0.9562 0.9604 0.9228 0.9150 0.9169 0.8644 0.8691 

0.8079 0.8299 0.8145 0.7500 0.2874 

0.9938 0.9909 0.9863 0.9853 0.9695 0.9840 0.9821 0.9780 0.9785 0.9849 

0.9723 0.9658 0.9757 0.9482 0.9480 0.9440 0.9038 0.9616 0.9606 0.9488 

0.8914 0.9351 0.9413 0.9289 0.4993 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

0.8625 0.7539 0.8330 0.8571 0.8768 0.8756 0.9144 0.8807 0.8245 0.8436 

0.8278 0.8618 0.8249 0.8014 0.9072 0.8638 0.8383 0.8020 0.6097 0.5820 

0.5553 0.4167 0.2581 0.2554 0.0271 

 

VMT BY HOUR : cmaq2008\nysparam\hvmt\103_hvmt.def 

SEASON : 1 

 

HOURLY TEMPERATURES: 71.3 75.7 79.7 82.7 86.1 86.9 88.3 88.4 87.2 86.2 84.4 81.9 

 80.1 78.1 76.2 76.1 75.1 74.7 72.6 72.2 71.5 70.8 69.6 69.3 

 

T2 EXH PHASE-IN : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2EXH.d 

T2 EVAP PHASE-IN : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2EVAP.d 

T2 CERT : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2CERT.d 

94+ LDG IMP : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\LEV2.d 

REBUILD EFFECTS : 0.05 

 

SCENARIO RECORD : Scenario No.: 1; Summer 2010; FREEWAY ; Speed: 2.5 mph 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

RELATIVE HUMIDITY : 88.7 81.2 70.6 63.9 55.3 54.4 52.4 54.6 55.4 57.6 62.0 67.9 

 69.6 75.4 78.1 79.6 82.7 84.6 87.1 87.2 87.9 88.6 91.9 92.6 

BAROMETRIC PRES : 29.92 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15 

FUEL PROGRAM : 4 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

FUEL RVP : 6.8 

GAS AROMATIC% : 22.0 

GAS OLEFIN% : 13.0 

GAS BENZENE% : 0.60 

E200 : 47 

E300 : 84 

OXYGENATE : MTBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETOH 10.00 1.00 

 : TAME 0.00 0.00 

AVERAGE SPEED : 2.5 FREEWAY 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

END OF RUN 
April 2008 Page B-5 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Sample Input File – Dutchess County, Summer 2010 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : 

*CMAQ Table Input File - Dutchess For Year 2010, Summer 

POLLUTANTS : HC NOX CO 

PARTICULATES : 

AIR TOXICS : 

REPORT FILE : cmaq2008\output\summer\dut10sum.out 

DATABASE OUTPUT : 

EMISSION TABLE : cmaq2008\output\summer\dut10sum.tbl 

WITH FIELDNAMES : 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2222 2221 22 

DATABASE VEHICLES : 22222 22222222 2 222 22222222 222 

 

RUN DATA 

EXPRESS HC AS VOC : 

EXPAND BUS EFS : 

EXPAND LDT EFS : 

EXPAND HDDV EFS : 

EXPAND HDGV EFS : 

EXPAND EXHAUST : 

EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : 

 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 85 08 22222 22211111 1 11 098 22212222 

I/M DESC FILE : cmaq2008\nysparam\im_mile\NYVIPup.d 

START DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\start\027sdist.d 

REG DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\reg\07_UPreg.d 

 

DIESEL FRACTIONS : 

0.0000 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0029 0.0029 0.0014 0.0012 0.0016 0.0019 

0.0006 0.0009 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0.0011 0.0036 0.0018 0.0017 0.0001 

0.0094 0.0108 0.0304 0.0413 0.0105 

0.0003 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0036 0.0023 

0.0041 0.0037 0.0048 0.0058 0.0064 0.0071 0.0098 0.0112 0.0131 0.0120 

0.0184 0.0309 0.0385 0.0366 0.0154 

0.0003 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0036 0.0023 

0.0041 0.0037 0.0048 0.0058 0.0064 0.0071 0.0098 0.0112 0.0131 0.0120 

0.0184 0.0309 0.0384 0.0365 0.0154 

0.0519 0.0861 0.0642 0.0658 0.0821 0.0849 0.0984 0.0971 0.1244 0.0696 

0.1397 0.1525 0.1225 0.1258 0.1560 0.1425 0.1369 0.1415 0.0949 0.0797 

0.1085 0.1341 0.1171 0.0926 0.0197 

0.0519 0.0861 0.0642 0.0659 0.0821 0.0850 0.0985 0.0971 0.1244 0.0697 

0.1398 0.1527 0.1222 0.1262 0.1562 0.1420 0.1373 0.1423 0.0951 0.0791 

0.1090 0.1328 0.1159 0.0928 0.0197 

0.3506 0.3127 0.2520 0.2307 0.2380 0.2138 0.1930 0.1880 0.2387 0.1668 

0.2491 0.2248 0.2415 0.2296 0.2663 0.2279 0.2079 0.2194 0.1588 0.1014 

0.1248 0.1726 0.1403 0.0970 0.0430 

0.6377 0.5670 0.4208 0.3692 0.4220 0.3649 0.3637 0.3657 0.3837 0.2900 

0.3238 0.2825 0.2722 0.2855 0.3306 0.2814 0.3266 0.3211 0.2410 0.1998 

0.1800 0.1892 0.1582 0.1505 0.1167 

0.8180 0.7137 0.6920 0.6380 0.5113 0.5782 0.5520 0.5558 0.5611 0.4339 

0.5057 0.6199 0.4993 0.4703 0.5187 0.5099 0.5144 0.4363 0.4785 0.2970 

0.2156 0.2765 0.3313 0.3694 0.1747 

0.7772 0.7649 0.6951 0.6601 0.6088 0.6430 0.7085 0.6616 0.6922 0.6582 

0.6645 0.7319 0.7178 0.6529 0.6562 0.5987 0.6685 0.5668 0.5403 0.4159 

0.3716 0.4394 0.3872 0.3380 0.1570 

0.9623 0.8878 0.8541 0.8277 0.8470 0.9243 0.8776 0.8977 0.8925 0.8565 

0.8630 0.8534 0.8079 0.8387 0.7630 0.8012 0.7293 0.8268 0.7666 0.7107 

0.6456 0.7093 0.6274 0.6960 0.3030 
NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MOBILE6.2 PM10/PM2.5 EMISSION FACTORS 

FOR REGIONAL, MESOSCALE, CMAQ, AND MICROSCALE 

AIR QUALITY ANALYSES

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE BUREAU 

June 2008 
June 2008 Page B-1 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Sample Input File – Albany County (EF Tables A1-A4), Winter 2010

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : 

*CMAQ Table Input File - Albany For Year 2010, winter 

POLLUTANTS : 

PARTICULATES : 

AIR TOXICS : 

REPORT FILE : pm2008\output\winter\alb10win.out 

DATABASE OUTPUT : 

EMISSION TABLE : pm2008\output\winter\alb10win.tbl 

WITH FIELDNAMES : 

AGGREGATED OUTPUT : 

DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2222 2221 22 

DATABASE VEHICLES : 22222 22222222 2 222 22222222 222 

 

RUN DATA 

EXPRESS HC AS VOC : 

EXPAND BUS EFS : 

EXPAND LDT EFS : 

EXPAND HDDV EFS : 

EXPAND HDGV EFS : 

EXPAND EXHAUST : 

EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : 

IDLE PM EMISSIONS : 

 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 85 08 22222 22211111 1 11 098 22212222 

I/M DESC FILE : cmaq2008\nysparam\im_mile\NYVIPup.d 

START DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\start\001sdist.d 

REG DIST : cmaq2008\nysparam\reg\07_UPreg.d 

 

DIESEL FRACTIONS : 

0.0000 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0029 0.0029 0.0014 0.0012 0.0016 0.0019 

0.0006 0.0009 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0.0011 0.0036 0.0018 0.0017 0.0001 

0.0094 0.0108 0.0304 0.0413 0.0105 

0.0003 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0036 0.0023 

0.0041 0.0037 0.0048 0.0058 0.0064 0.0071 0.0098 0.0112 0.0131 0.0120 

0.0184 0.0309 0.0385 0.0366 0.0154 

0.0003 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0036 0.0023 

0.0041 0.0037 0.0048 0.0058 0.0064 0.0071 0.0098 0.0112 0.0131 0.0120 

0.0184 0.0309 0.0384 0.0365 0.0154 

0.0519 0.0861 0.0642 0.0658 0.0821 0.0849 0.0984 0.0971 0.1244 0.0696 

0.1397 0.1525 0.1225 0.1258 0.1560 0.1425 0.1369 0.1415 0.0949 0.0797 

0.1085 0.1341 0.1171 0.0926 0.0197 

0.0519 0.0861 0.0642 0.0659 0.0821 0.0850 0.0985 0.0971 0.1244 0.0697 

0.1398 0.1527 0.1222 0.1262 0.1562 0.1420 0.1373 0.1423 0.0951 0.0791 

0.1090 0.1328 0.1159 0.0928 0.0197 

0.3506 0.3127 0.2520 0.2307 0.2380 0.2138 0.1930 0.1880 0.2387 0.1668 

0.2491 0.2248 0.2415 0.2296 0.2663 0.2279 0.2079 0.2194 0.1588 0.1014 

0.1248 0.1726 0.1403 0.0970 0.0430 

0.6377 0.5670 0.4208 0.3692 0.4220 0.3649 0.3637 0.3657 0.3837 0.2900 

0.3238 0.2825 0.2722 0.2855 0.3306 0.2814 0.3266 0.3211 0.2410 0.1998 

0.1800 0.1892 0.1582 0.1505 0.1167 

0.8180 0.7137 0.6920 0.6380 0.5113 0.5782 0.5520 0.5558 0.5611 0.4339 

0.5057 0.6199 0.4993 0.4703 0.5187 0.5099 0.5144 0.4363 0.4785 0.2970 

0.2156 0.2765 0.3313 0.3694 0.1747 

0.7772 0.7649 0.6951 0.6601 0.6088 0.6430 0.7085 0.6616 0.6922 0.6582 

0.6645 0.7319 0.7178 0.6529 0.6562 0.5987 0.6685 0.5668 0.5403 0.4159 

0.3716 0.4394 0.3872 0.3380 0.1570 

0.9623 0.8878 0.8541 0.8277 0.8470 0.9243 0.8776 0.8977 0.8925 0.8565 

0.8630 0.8534 0.8079 0.8387 0.7630 0.8012 0.7293 0.8268 0.7666 0.7107 
June 2008 Page B-2 

New York State Department of Transportation 

0.6456 0.7093 0.6274 0.6960 0.3030 

0.9922 0.9756 0.9691 0.9575 0.9616 0.8961 0.9701 0.9346 0.9380 0.9099 

0.8859 0.8935 0.8737 0.8965 0.8780 0.8879 0.8443 0.8003 0.7127 0.6970 

0.6766 0.6430 0.6929 0.6678 0.2963 

0.9959 0.9923 0.9859 0.9847 0.9887 0.9746 0.9857 0.9780 0.9510 0.9672 

0.9505 0.9577 0.9453 0.9310 0.9423 0.9573 0.9476 0.9348 0.9319 0.9235 

0.9228 0.8940 0.9125 0.9202 0.6233 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

0.9022 0.8733 0.9032 0.9028 0.8941 0.9110 0.9024 0.9049 0.9100 0.8941 

0.9005 0.8441 0.9133 0.9263 0.9223 0.9015 0.8970 0.8741 0.8621 0.8349 

0.7868 0.6030 0.4725 0.4368 0.0359 

 

VMT BY HOUR : cmaq2008\nysparam\hvmt\001_hvmt.def 

SEASON : 2 

 

HOURLY TEMPERATURES: 17.6 17.5 18.3 21.1 23.9 25.5 27.5 29.4 30.6 31.3 30.9 29.2 

 27.4 26.2 25.0 24.6 24.3 23.4 20.7 20.0 19.7 18.6 18.3 18.1 

 

T2 EXH PHASE-IN : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2EXH.d 

T2 EVAP PHASE-IN : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2EVAP.d 

T2 CERT : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\L2CERT.d 

94+ LDG IMP : cmaq2008\nysparam\lev2\LEV2.d 

REBUILD EFFECTS : 0.05 

 

SCENARIO RECORD : Scenario No.: 1; Winter 2010; FREEWAY ; Speed: 2.5 mph 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 

EVALUATION MONTH : 1 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15 

FUEL PROGRAM : 4 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

FUEL RVP : 12.5 

GAS AROMATIC% : 25.0 

GAS OLEFIN% : 12.0 

GAS BENZENE% : 1.00 

E200 : 53 

E300 : 84 

OXYGENATE : MTBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETOH 5.00 1.00 

 : TAME 0.00 0.00 

AVERAGE SPEED : 2.5 FREEWAY 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 

SCENARIO RECORD : Scenario No.: 2; Winter 2010; FREEWAY ; Speed: 2.5 mph 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 

EVALUATION MONTH : 1 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15 

FUEL PROGRAM : 4 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 

FUEL RVP : 12.5 

GAS AROMATIC% : 25.0 

GAS OLEFIN% : 12.0 
June 2008 Page B-3 

New York State Department of Transportation 

GAS BENZENE% : 1.00 

E200 : 53 

E300 : 84 

OXYGENATE : MTBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETBE 0.00 0.00 

 : ETOH 5.00 1.00 

 : TAME 0.00 0.00 

AVERAGE SPEED : 2.5 FREEWAY 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

END OF RUN 
Ny-VT Bi=-State Rail Air Quality Appendix 

MOBILE 6.2 Output Files 
April 2008 

ESB - NYSDOT 

29

 MOBILE6 Emission Factors 

 For Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady Counties 

 Year: 2030 

 VOC Rate (gram/mile) 

 -------------------- 

 Average Vehicle Speed (mph) 

Road Type 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 

01 2.19 0.85 0.59 0.46 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 

02/06 2.13 0.82 0.57 0.45 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 

07/08/09 2.12 0.81 0.57 0.45 0.34 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 

11/12 2.11 0.81 0.56 0.43 0.32 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 

14/16 2.12 0.81 0.56 0.44 0.33 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 

17/19 2.11 0.80 0.56 0.44 0.33 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 

 

 NOx Rate (gram/mile) 

 -------------------- 

 Average Vehicle Speed (mph) 

Road Type 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 

01 0.36 0.31 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.24 

02/06 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 

07/08/09 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 

11/12 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 

14/16 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 

17/19 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 

 

 CO Rate (gram/mile) 

 -------------------- 

 Average Vehicle Speed (mph) 

Road Type 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 

01 21.52 15.69 13.21 11.97 10.63 10.19 9.91 9.74 9.71 9.92 10.16 10.43 10.74 11.11 11.54 

02/06 21.34 15.44 13.33 12.28 11.16 10.57 10.22 10.08 10.08 10.32 10.59 10.87 11.17 11.53 11.93 

07/08/09 21.33 15.40 13.33 12.29 11.23 10.67 10.35 10.22 10.23 10.48 10.76 11.04 11.35 11.70 12.08 

11/12 21.26 15.35 13.02 11.86 10.73 10.46 10.29 10.18 10.18 10.44 10.71 11.00 11.31 11.66 12.04 

14/16 21.38 15.42 13.37 12.34 11.32 10.78 10.47 10.36 10.37 10.63 10.91 11.20 11.50 11.86 12.23 

17/19 21.39 15.40 13.38 12.38 11.39 10.88 10.59 10.48 10.51 10.78 11.06 11.36 11.66 12.01 12.37 

 

Note: 01 - Rural Interstate; 02 - Rural Principal Arterial; 06 - Rural Minor Arterial; 

 07 - Rural Major Collectors; 08 - Rural Minor Collectors; 09 - Rural Local; 

 11 - Urban Interstate; 12 - Urban Freeways and Expressways; 14 - Urban Principal Arterial; 

 16 - Urban Minor Arterial; 17 - Urban Collectors; 19 - Urban Local; 
June 2008 

ESB - NYSDOT 

2 

 Table A1 MOBILE6 PM10 Non-Idle Emission Factors (g/mi) 

 For All Counties in Regions 1 - 7 and 9 and Ulster and Columbia Counties in Region 8 

 Analysis Year 

Veh. Type 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 

 LDGV 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 

 LDGT1 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 

 LDGT2 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 

 LDGT3 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 

 LDGT4 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 

 HDGV2B 0.034 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

 HDGV3 0.043 0.042 0.041 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.039 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.037 0.036 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 

 HDGV4 0.041 0.040 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.037 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 

 HDGV5 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.044 0.043 0.043 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 

 HDGV6 0.054 0.053 0.053 0.052 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.048 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 

 HDGV7 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.059 0.058 0.057 0.056 0.055 0.053 0.052 0.052 0.051 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 

 HDGV8A 0.091 0.090 0.090 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.088 0.087 0.086 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 

 LDDV 0.054 0.049 0.048 0.048 0.047 0.046 0.045 0.043 0.040 0.033 0.031 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

 LDDT12 0.043 0.041 0.039 0.038 0.036 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

 LDDT34 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

 HDDV2B 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 

 HDDV3 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 

 HDDV4 0.039 0.037 0.036 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 

 HDDV5 0.040 0.039 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 

 HDDV6 0.058 0.055 0.053 0.048 0.047 0.045 0.043 0.042 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.039 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 

 HDDV7 0.057 0.054 0.052 0.048 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.041 0.040 0.039 0.039 0.038 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 

 HDDV8A 0.109 0.104 0.100 0.097 0.093 0.089 0.085 0.082 0.079 0.076 0.074 0.073 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 

 HDDV8B 0.094 0.089 0.086 0.084 0.082 0.080 0.076 0.074 0.072 0.071 0.069 0.068 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 

 HDGB 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.060 0.059 0.058 0.057 0.055 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 

 HDDBT 0.079 0.073 0.070 0.068 0.066 0.063 0.062 0.060 0.058 0.056 0.055 0.054 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 

 HDDBS 0.079 0.076 0.071 0.069 0.065 0.061 0.059 0.057 0.053 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 

 MC 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 
June 2008 

ESB - NYSDOT 

4 

 Table A2 MOBILE6 PM2.5 Non-Idle Emission Factors (g/mi) 

 For All Counties in Regions 1 - 7 and 9 and Ulster and Columbia Counties in Region 8 

 Analysis Year 

Veh. Type 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 

 LDGV 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 

 LDGT1 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 

 LDGT2 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 

 LDGT3 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 

 LDGT4 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 

 HDGV2B 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 

 HDGV3 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 

 HDGV4 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 

 HDGV5 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 

 HDGV6 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 

 HDGV7 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.037 0.036 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 

 HDGV8A 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.050 0.049 0.048 0.048 0.047 0.048 0.047 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 

 LDDV 0.038 0.034 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.028 0.026 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 

 LDDT12 0.028 0.026 0.025 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 

 LDDT34 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 

 HDDV2B 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 

 HDDV3 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 

 HDDV4 0.022 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 

 HDDV5 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 

 HDDV6 0.039 0.036 0.034 0.030 0.029 0.027 0.026 0.025 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 

 HDDV7 0.039 0.036 0.034 0.030 0.028 0.026 0.025 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.021 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 

 HDDV8A 0.071 0.066 0.062 0.059 0.055 0.052 0.048 0.045 0.042 0.040 0.038 0.037 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 

 HDDV8B 0.056 0.052 0.048 0.047 0.045 0.043 0.040 0.038 0.036 0.035 0.033 0.033 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 

 HDGB 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.039 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 

 HDDBT 0.059 0.053 0.050 0.048 0.046 0.044 0.043 0.041 0.039 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 

 HDDBS 0.059 0.056 0.052 0.049 0.046 0.042 0.040 0.038 0.034 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 

 MC 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 
Train Emissions
 

 

 

 

Emission Factors for Locomotives 

Technical Highlights 

T

he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

emission standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons 

(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM) and smoke for 

newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives. These standards, 

which are codiied at 40 CFR part 1033, include several sets of emission standards with applicability dependent on the date a locomotive is 

irst manufactured. The irst set of standards (Tier 0) applies to most 

locomotives originally manufactured before 2001. The most stringent 

set of standards (Tier 4) applies to locomotives originally manufactured 

in 2015 and later. This fact sheet describes EPA’s estimates of the typical in-use emission rates for locomotives subject to these standards, as 

well as the previous standards. 

It is important to emphasize that this fact sheet relies on many simplifying assumptions. Thus emission rates calculated as described in this 

fact sheet should be considered as approximations. 

Estimated Locomotive Emission Rates by Tier 

EPA has estimated average emission rates, given in grams per brake horsepower-hour 

(g/bhp-hr), for uncontrolled locomotives and those required to meet the various 

emission standards. Emissions were estimated for two different types of operation: a 

low power cycle representing operation in a switch yard, and a higher power cycle 

representative of general line-haul operation. These estimates are shown in Tables 

1 and 2. Note that plus signs in the table indicate that a given tier of standards was 

revised in a 2008 rulemaking (73 FR 37096, June 30, 2008). For example, locomotives originally manufactured in years 2002-2004 were initially subject to the original 

Tier 1 standards, but will be required to meet revised Tier 1 standards (also known as 

Tier 1+ standards) when remanufactured. See the regulatory text for a more precise 

explanation of which standards apply to which locomotives. 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

EPA-420-F-09-025 

April 2009 
It is important to note that there can be signiicant variability in in-use emission rates, especially 

for uncontrolled locomotives. Also, a single locomotive’s emission rate can vary throughout its 

life as the engine ages and as ambient conditions change. Thus the values presented here are intended to relect the average emission rates. It is also worth noting that these emission estimates 

were developed in the context of adopting new emission standards. This is especially important 

for the CO emission factors. Because EPA’s CO emission standards were intended to cap CO 

emissions at pre-control levels (which were relatively low), we have not projected any reductions in CO emission factors. However, recent testing indicates that emission controls designed 

to reduce PM and HC emissions are also reducing CO emissions. Thus the CO emission rates 

presented here may be too high and should be used with some caution. A similar effect may also 

apply for HC emissions from Tier 0 and Tier 1 locomotives (but not the Tier 0+ and Tier 1+ 

locomotives). 

Table 1 - Line-Haul Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

PM10 HC NO x CO 

UNCONTrOllED 0.32 0.48 13.00 1.28 

TiEr 0 0.32 0.48 8.60 1.28 

TiEr 0+ 0.20 0.30 7.20 1.28 

TiEr 1 0.32 0.47 6.70 1.28 

TiEr 1+ 0.20 0.29 6.70 1.28 

TiEr2 0.18 0.26 4.95 1.28 

TiEr 2+ & TiEr 3 0.08 0.13 4.95 1.28 

TiEr 4 0.015 0.04 1.00 1.28 

+ iNDiCATES THAT THESE ArE THE rEviSED STANDArDS iN 40 CFr PArT 1033 

Technical Highlights 

PM10 HC NO x CO 

UNCONTrOllED 0.44 1.01 17.40 1.83 

TiEr 0 0.44 1.01 12.60 1.83 

TiEr 0+ 0.23 0.57 10.60 1.83 

TiEr 1 0.43 1.01 9.90 1.83 

TiEr 1+ 0.23 0.57 9.90 1.83 

TiEr2 0.19 0.51 7.30 1.83 

TiEr 2+ 0.11 0.26 7.30 1.83 

TiEr 3 0.08 0.26 4.50 1.83 

TiEr 4 0.015 0.08 1.00 1.83 

+ iNDiCATES THAT THESE ArE THE rEviSED STANDArDS iN 40 CFr PArT 1033 

Table 2 - Switch Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

2 
Technical Highlights 

Conversion to Gram per Gallon Emission Factors 

It is often useful to express emission rates as grams of pollutant emitted per gallon of fuel consumed (g/gal). This can be done by multiplying the emission rates in Table 1 or 2 by a conversion factor relating the fuel consumption (gal/hr) and the usable power (bhp) of the engine. 

EPA has estimated different conversion factors for different types of locomotive service as shown 

in Table 3. The two primary reasons for the differences are variations in locomotive age and 

duty cycle. Fuel eficiency tends to be worse for older locomotive designs and for locomotives 

used in low power applications such as switching. Note that the g/gal emission factors presented 

at the end of this fact sheet can be converted back to g/bhp-hr by dividing them by the conversion factors shown here. 

Table 3 

Conversion Factors (bhp-hr/gal) 

locomotive Application Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/gal) 

large line-Haul and Passenger 20.8 

Small line-Haul 18.2 

Switching 15.2 

Conversion to Gram per Ton-Mile Emission Factors 

In some cases, it can be helpful to express emission factors as grams emitted per ton-mile of 

freight hauled. However, this can also be very problematic because the amount of engine work 

required for each ton-mile varies signiicantly with a variety of factors. For example, it takes 

more work to haul freight through mountainous terrain than across lat areas. Since EPA does 

not have detailed information about these variations, we cannot provide accurate g/ton-mile 

emission rates. However, very approximate national average values can be calculated based on 

data collected by the Association of American Railroads for revenue ton-miles and fuel consumption, which show that about one gallon of fuel is consumed by the railroads to haul 400 

tons-miles of freight. Thus dividing g/gal emission rates by 400 ton-miles/gal gives approximate 

g/ton-mile emission rates. 

Emission Inventory Estimation 

Total emissions can be calculated by multiplying the emission factors (in g/gal) by the fuel consumption rates (in million-gal/yr) to give annual emission rates (in metric tons per year). Multi

-

plying this metric estimate by 1.102 gives standard U.S. tons (or short tons) per year. 

EPA has estimated that locomotives consume approximately 4 billion gallons of diesel fuel each 

year. This includes national/regional freight service, switching, local freight service, and passenger service. The relative amounts of fuel used in the United States for these four different types 

of operation are shown in Table 4. The great majority of fuel consumed by locomotives each 

year is used in line-haul freight service by the largest railroads. Smaller amounts are also used in 

3 
Technical Highlights 

switching and passenger service, and by very small railroads. For the purpose of this fact sheet, 

we are aggregating the largest railroads with smaller railroads that are fully subject to EPA’s emission requirements. This includes regional railroads as well as other railroads such as those that 

are owned by large businesses. The local freight category includes only those railroads that meet 

our regulatory deinition of “small railroad” (40 CFR 1033.901) to qualify for small business allowances under our regulations. These railroads are included in this fact sheet as local whether 

or not they are truly local in nature. The passenger category includes local commuter railroads 

and AMTRAK. 

Table 4 - Locomotive Fuel Consumption by Service Category 

National and regional Freight line-haul 88% 

National Freight Switching 7% 

local Freight <2% 

Passenger 3% 

Other Pollutants 

The preceding emission factors include those pollutants for which EPA has set emission standards. However, other pollutants may also be of interest. 

The broad category of volatile organic compounds (VOC) is a slightly different way of aggregating the organic pollutants controlled by our HC emission standards. In our rulemaking analysis 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420r08001a.pdf), we estimated that VOC emissions 

can be assumed to be equal to 1.053 times the HC emissions. Similarly, PM emissions can be 

expressed as PM (which includes all particles up to 10 microns in diameter) or PM (which 10 2.5

includes only those particles up to 2.5 microns in diameter). PM2.5 emissions can be estimated 

as 0.97 times the PM10 emissions, meaning that nearly all of the PM is less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter. 

Gram per gallon emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO

2

) and carbon dioxide (CO

2

) are largely independent of engine parameters and are primarily dependent on fuel properties. Locomotive-speciic emission rates are not presented here. Instead, SO2

 and CO

2

 emission rates should be calculated based on the properties of the speciic fuel being used by the locomotives. These emission 

rates can also be assumed to be the same as for other diesel engines operating on similar fuel. 

Note that special caution should be used when estimating SO

2

 emission rates since the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel varies much more than the carbon content. Also, while the vast majority 

of sulfur in the fuel is typically converted to SO

2

, up to 5 percent of the sulfur is oxidized further to sulfate (and forms particulate matter), so that the fraction of fuel sulfur emitted as SO2 

may be as low as 95 percent. Examples of these calculations are shown below based on inputs 

described in the NONROAD technical document NR-009c (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ 

nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/420p04009.pdf). 

4 
Technical Highlights 

SO2 (g/gal) = (fuel density) × (conversion factor) × (64 g SO2/32 g S) × (S content of fuel) 

Consider the example where the density of diesel fuel is 3200 g/gal, the fraction of fuel sulfur 

converted to SO2 is 97.8 percent, and the sulfur content of the fuel is 300 ppm. 

SO2 (g/gal) = (3200) × (0.978) × (2.00) × (300 x 10-6) = 1.88 g/gal 

CO2 (g/gal) = (fuel density) × (44 g CO2/12 g C) × (C content of fuel) 

Consider the example where the density of diesel fuel is 3200 g/gal and the carbon content of 

the fuel is 87 percent by mass. 

CO2 (g/gal) = (3200) × (3.67) × (0.87) = 10,217 g/gal 

Other trace pollutants such as N2O, methane, and many air toxics are more dependent on 

engine parameters. At this time, however, EPA does not have detailed emission rates for these 

pollutants from locomotives. Where estimates are needed for N2O or methane, you may assume 

that emissions of these pollutants from locomotives are similar to those of other diesel engines 

with similar technology. For N2O, you may assume the emissions are proportional to total NOx. 

For methane, you may assume the emissions are proportional to total hydrocarbons. Note however, that the presence of catalyzed components in the exhaust can signiicantly affect these 

ratios. So it is best to compare emissions from uncatalyzed locomotives to emissions from other 

uncatalyzed diesel engines. While this same approach could be used for air toxics (assuming that 

air toxic emissions are proportional to total hydrocarbons), EPA has estimated air toxic emissions from locomotives. These estimates are described in the National Emission Inventory documentation (see ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002inalnei/documentation/mobile/2002nei_ 

mobile_nonroad_methods.pdf - appendix C). 

Projected Future Emission Factors 

Tables 5-7 give the expected leet average NOx, PM10, and HC emission factors by calendar year 

for the four categories of locomotives (the same four categories as are shown in Table 4). The 

steady decline in these emission factors relects the penetration of the various tiers of locomotives into the leet over time. More detail regarding the assumptions on which these projections 

were based can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2008 rulemaking (http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420r08001a.pdf) 

5 
For More Information 

You can access the rule and related documents on EPA’s Ofice of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web site at: www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm. 

For more information on this rule, please contact the Assessment and Standards Division information line at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ofice of Transportation and Air Quality 

2000 Traverwood Drive 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Voicemail: (734) 214-4636 

E-mail: asdinfo@epa.gov 

Technical Highlights 

6 
Table 5 – NOx Emission Factors (g/gal) 

Technical Highlights 

Calendar large line- large Small Overall 

Year 

2006 

haul 

180 

Switch 

250 

railroads 

242 

Passenger/Commuter 

244 

Average 

188 

2007 175 249 242 229 183 

2008 169 243 242 214 177 

2009 165 241 242 200 172 

2010 157 236 242 183 165 

2011 149 235 242 167 157 

2012 144 227 242 157 152 

2013 139 225 242 147 147 

2014 135 217 242 138 143 

2015 129 215 240 131 137 

2016 121 208 239 119 129 

2017 114 206 237 112 122 

2018 108 202 236 105 117 

2019 103 200 233 98 112 

2020 99 187 231 93 107 

2021 94 185 228 88 102 

2022 89 177 225 83 97 

2023 84 172 223 78 92 

2024 79 162 220 73 87 

2025 74 150 217 68 81 

2026 69 144 215 64 77 

2027 65 138 212 60 72 

2028 61 132 209 56 68 

2029 57 126 206 52 64 

2030 53 119 203 49 60 

2031 49 112 200 46 56 

2032 46 105 197 42 52 

2033 43 98 193 39 49 

2034 40 91 190 36 46 

2035 37 84 187 33 43 

2036 35 77 184 30 40 

2037 33 71 180 28 38 

2038 31 67 177 26 36 

2039 29 63 174 24 34 

2040 28 60 171 23 32 

7 
Table 6 – PM10 Emission Factors (g/gal) 

Technical Highlights 

Calendar large line- large Small Overall 

Year 

2006 

haul 

6.4 

Switch 

6.5 

railroads 

6.5 

Passenger/Commuter 

6.5 

Average 

6.4 

2007 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.3 

2008 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.1 5.1 

2009 4.9 5.5 5.7 5.0 4.9 

2010 4.7 5.4 5.7 4.8 4.7 

2011 4.4 5.3 5.7 4.5 4.5 

2012 4.1 5.1 5.7 4.2 4.2 

2013 3.8 5.0 5.6 3.9 3.9 

2014 3.6 4.8 5.6 3.6 3.7 

2015 3.4 4.8 5.5 3.4 3.5 

2016 3.1 4.6 5.5 3.1 3.3 

2017 2.9 4.5 5.4 2.8 3.0 

2018 2.7 4.4 5.4 2.6 2.8 

2019 2.5 4.4 5.4 2.3 2.6 

2020 2.3 4.1 5.3 2.1 2.5 

2021 2.2 4.0 5.3 2.0 2.4 

2022 2.0 3.9 5.3 1.8 2.2 

2023 1.9 3.7 5.2 1.7 2.1 

2024 1.7 3.5 5.2 1.5 1.9 

2025 1.6 3.2 5.1 1.4 1.8 

2026 1.5 3.1 5.1 1.2 1.6 

2027 1.4 3.0 5.1 1.1 1.5 

2028 1.3 2.8 5.0 1.0 1.4 

2029 1.1 2.7 5.0 0.9 1.3 

2030 1.0 2.5 4.9 0.8 1.2 

2031 1.0 2.4 4.8 0.7 1.1 

2032 0.9 2.2 4.8 0.7 1.0 

2033 0.8 2.1 4.7 0.6 0.9 

2034 0.7 1.9 4.6 0.6 0.9 

2035 0.7 1.7 4.6 0.5 0.8 

2036 0.6 1.6 4.5 0.5 0.7 

2037 0.6 1.5 4.4 0.4 0.7 

2038 0.5 1.4 4.4 0.4 0.6 

2039 0.5 1.3 4.3 0.4 0.6 

2040 0.4 1.2 4.2 0.3 0.5 

8 
Table 7 - HC Emission Factors (g/gal) 

Technical Highlights 

Calendar large line- large Small Overall 

Year 

2006 

haul 

9.5 

Switch 

15.0 

railroads 

11.7 

Passenger/Commuter 

9.7 

Average 

10.0 

2007 9.3 15.0 11.7 9.5 9.8 

2008 9.0 14.5 11.7 9.3 9.5 

2009 8.7 14.5 11.7 9.1 9.1 

2010 8.3 14.1 11.7 8.6 8.8 

2011 7.7 14.0 11.7 8.1 8.2 

2012 7.1 13.3 11.7 7.5 7.6 

2013 6.5 13.3 11.7 6.9 7.1 

2014 6.1 12.7 11.7 6.3 6.7 

2015 5.7 12.6 11.7 5.8 6.3 

2016 5.1 12.0 11.7 5.2 5.7 

2017 4.6 11.8 11.7 4.6 5.2 

2018 4.2 11.5 11.7 4.1 4.8 

2019 3.9 11.4 11.7 3.5 4.5 

2020 3.6 10.5 11.7 3.1 4.2 

2021 3.4 10.4 11.7 2.9 4.0 

2022 3.2 9.8 11.7 2.7 3.8 

2023 3.0 9.5 11.7 2.4 3.6 

2024 2.8 8.9 11.7 2.2 3.4 

2025 2.6 8.0 11.7 2.0 3.1 

2026 2.5 7.6 11.7 1.8 2.9 

2027 2.3 7.3 11.7 1.6 2.8 

2028 2.1 6.9 11.7 1.5 2.6 

2029 2.0 6.5 11.7 1.3 2.4 

2030 1.9 6.2 11.7 1.2 2.3 

2031 1.7 5.8 11.7 1.1 2.2 

2032 1.6 5.5 11.7 1.0 2.0 

2033 1.5 5.1 11.7 0.9 1.9 

2034 1.4 4.7 11.7 0.8 1.8 

2035 1.3 4.4 11.7 0.7 1.7 

2036 1.2 4.0 11.7 0.7 1.6 

2037 1.2 3.7 11.7 0.6 1.5 

2038 1.1 3.6 11.7 0.6 1.4 

2039 1.1 3.4 11.7 0.5 1.4 

2040 1.0 3.2 11.7 0.5 1.3 

9 
Mesoscale Results
Alternative Unit PM2.5

4

PM10 VOC NOX CO CO2

6

Tier 1+ 1,2 g/bhp‐hr                           0.194                           0.200                           0.290                           6.700                         1.200

g/mile5,6

                         1.345                           1.387                           2.011                         46.453                         8.320                 3,405.667

Convert to

#  of miles/gal : 3

Line‐Haul Emission Factor (g/bhp‐hr) to 20.8

6 CO2 assumed density of diesel fuel of 3,200 g/gal and carbon content of fuel is 87 percent by mass (Based on page 4, Other Pollutants inEmission Factors for Locomotives . CO2 (g/gal) =3,200*3.67*0.87=10,217 g/gal

Alternatives Description of Alternative

Total Increase in

Train Mileage per

day per

Alternative

(miles)1# Trains PM2.5 PM10 HC NOX CO

(kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day)

Passenger Train Emission Factors (calculated in Table A): 1.35 1.39 2.01 46.45 8.32

Alternative 3A New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Manchester (via

Schenectady)

129 1                             0.17                             0.18                             0.26                             5.99                           1.07

Alternative 3B New Service to SW VT ‐Terminus Manchester (via CP Colonie) 170 1                             0.23                             0.24                             0.34                             7.90                           1.41

Alternative 4A New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Rutland (via Schenectady) 191 1                             0.26                             0.26                             0.38                             8.87                           1.59

Alternative 4B New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Rutland (via CP Colonie) 234 1                             0.31                             0.32                             0.47                           10.87                           1.95

Alternative 5A Re‐Route Ethan Allen (via Schenectady) ‐9 1                            (0.01)                            (0.01)                            (0.02)                            (0.42)                          (0.07)

Alternative 5B Re‐Route Ethan Allen (via CP Colonie) 34 1                             0.05                             0.05                             0.07                             1.58                           0.28

Alternative 6A Split Shuttle  (via Schenectady) 391 1                             0.53                             0.54                             0.79                           18.16                           3.25

Alternative 6B Split Shuttle (via CP Colonie) 434 1                             0.58                             0.60                             0.87                           20.16                          3.61

1 Based on information provided by the VHB Team. 11/30/11

1 Emission Factors are based on the Emission Factors for Locomitves, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA‐420‐F‐09‐025, April 2009.Emission Factors assume locomotives similar to the GE P32AC‐DM which can operate on

both diesel powere or use the 3rd rail system near Penn Station and represent a tier 0/Teir1 locomotive.

Table A : Train Emissions Factors1

Table B: Estimated Rail Emissions for NY‐VT Rail Alternatives

2 The values presented here are intended to reflect the average emission rates. It is also worth noting that these emission estimates were developed in the context of adopting new emission standards. This is especially important for the CO emission factors. Because EPA’s CO

emission standards were intended to cap CO emissions at pre‐control levels (which were relatively low), we have not projected any reductions in CO emission factors. However, recent testing indicates that emission controls designed to reduce PM and HC emissions are also reducing

CO emissions. Thus the CO emission rates presented here may be too high and should be used with some caution. A similar effect may also apply for HC emissions from Tier 0 and Tier 1 locomotives.

3 Conversion of g/gallon to g/mile assumes 3 gallons per mile for passenger locomotives

4 Pm2.5 is 0.97 times of PM10 (EPA Train Emission Guidelines)

5  All values are from Table 1 of Line‐Haul Emission Factor (g/bhp‐hr) * 20.8 (bhp‐hr/gal) which is the conversion factor from Table 3 for Passenger.
MOBILE6 Emission Factors2

0.3% 49.25 PM2.5

3

PM10

3 VOC NOX CO

0.5% 51.25 g/mile g/mile g/mile g/mile g/mile

1.6% 53.75

1.2% 56.25 Of‐Peak                             0.01                             0.27                             0.18                             0.18                         11.17

30.1% 58.75 Peak                             0.01                             0.27                             0.18                             0.20                         11.93

22.9% 61.25

43.4% 63.75

Average: 61.3165

Peak = 55

Off‐Peak 65

Roadway Type : Rural Principal Arterial/Rural minor Arterial

Alternatives Description of Alternative

Reduction in Annual

Total Vehicles Miles

Traveled (VMT) :

(miles/year) PM2.5 PM10 VOC/HC NOX CO

kg/day kg/day kg/day kg/day kg/day

Alternative 3A New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Manchester (via

Schenectady)

                      1,495,800                           17.95                         403.87                         269.24                         278.22                 17,049.13

Alternative 3B New Service to SW VT ‐Terminus Manchester (via CP Colonie)                        2,441,400                           29.30                         659.18                         439.45                         454.10                 27,827.08

Alternative 4A New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Rutland (via Schenectady)                       2,497,900                           29.97                         674.43                         449.62                         464.61                 28,471.06

Alternative 4B New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Rutland (via CP Colonie)                       3,890,500                           46.69                     1,050.44                         700.29                         723.63                 44,343.92

Alternative 5A Re‐Route Ethan Allen (via Schenectady)                       2,144,900                           25.74                         579.12                         386.08                         398.95                 24,447.57

Alternative 5B Re‐Route Ethan Allen (via CP Colonie)                       2,743,600                           32.92                         740.77                         493.85                         510.31                 31,271.55

Alternative 6A Split Shuttle  (via Schenectady)                       2,369,800                           28.44                         639.85                         426.56                         440.78                 27,010.98

Alternative 6B Split Shuttle (via CP Colonie)                       2,797,800                           33.57                         755.41                         503.60                         520.39                 31,889.32

1 Average Speeds provided by VHB Team 11/30/11

Off‐Peak Period Factor= 0.7

Average Speed Assumptions for Project Roadways 1:

2 MOBILE 6 Emissions Factors are based on the the NYSDOT ESB April 2008 MOBILE Emission Factors for Regional, Meossocale and CMAQ Project Emission Calcluations for Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady Counties for Year 2030. (Based on the ridership/VMT estimates, the average percent of VMT reduction  in Vermont

versus NY is only 3% therefore the NY factors were utilized.)

3 Peak Period Volume Factor is assumed to be 70% (0.7) which means that 70% of the daily volume is  considered to be "peak traffic" .

3 See the PM Emissions Calculation Table based on the NYSDOT MOBILE Emission Factor Tables with Vehicle Distributions

Table C : Estimated Emissions Reduction due to VMT Reduction
TOTAL PROJECT-RELATED REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS (kg/day)

Alternatives Description of Alternative PM2.5 PM10 VOC/HC NOX CO

kg/day kg/day kg/day kg/day kg/day

Alternative 3A New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Manchester (via

Schenectady) 17.78 403.69 268.98 272.23 17,048.06

Alternative 3B New Service to SW VT ‐Terminus Manchester (via CP Colonie)

 29.07 658.94 439.11 446.20 27,825.66

Alternative 4A New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Rutland (via Schenectady)

 29.72 674.17 449.24 455.74 28,469.48

Alternative 4B New Service to SW VT ‐ Terminus Rutland (via CP Colonie)

 46.37 1,050.11 699.82 712.76 44,341.97

Alternative 5A Re‐Route Ethan Allen (via Schenectady) 25.75 579.14 386.10 399.37 24,447.65

Alternative 5B Re‐Route Ethan Allen (via CP Colonie) 32.88 740.72 493.78 508.73 31,271.27

Alternative 6A Split Shuttle  (via Schenectady) 27.91 639.30 425.78 422.62 27,007.73

Alternative 6B Split Shuttle (via CP Colonie) 32.99 754.80 502.73 500.23 31,885.71

Table D : Estimated Mobile Source Emissions Reduction of Each Alternative

(Emissions from VMT Reduction ‐ Estimated Train Emission)
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendices A-8 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Appendix D: Section 106 Consultation

Appendices A-9 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014












New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendices A-10 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

Appendix E: List of Preparers

Appendices A-11 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study 

Environmental Assessment 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

VHB 

David Wilcock 

Principal - Transit and Rail Services 

VHB 

99 High Street 

10th Floor 

Boston, MA 2110 

617.728.7777 

Dwilcock@VHB.com 

Lara Webster 

Transit Planner 

VHB 

99 High Street 

10th Floor 

Boston, MA 2110 

617.728.7777 

LWebster@VHB.com 

Nicole Benjamin-Ma 

Preservation Planner 

VHB 

101 Walnut Street 

Watertown, MA 2472 

617.924.1770 

NBenjamin-Ma@VHB.com 

Kritsen Bergassi 

Environmental Scientist / Planner 

VHB 

99 High Street 

10th Floor 

Boston, MA 2110 

617.728.7777 

KBergassi@VHB.com 

New York -- Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

List of Preparers Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. -December2014 
Michael Lambert 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Transit and Rail 

VHB 

99 High Street 

10th Floor 

Boston, MA 2110 

617.728.7777 

MLambert@VHB.com 

Julie Murphy 

Senior Transit Planner 

VHB 

101 Walnut Street 

Watertown, MA 2472 

617.924.1770 

JMurphy@VHB.com 

Natasha Velickovic 

Project Manager 

VHB 

99 High Street 

10th Floor 

Boston, MA 2110 

617.728.7777 

Nvelickovic@VHB.com 

Christopher Rife 

Senior Project Manager 

VHB 

101 Walnut Street 

Watertown, MA 2472 

617.924.1770 

CRife@VHB.com 

Josh Sky 

Senior Scientist/GIS Manager 

VHB 

7056 US Route 7 

PO Box 120 

North Ferrisburgh, VT 5473 

802.497.6100 

JSky@VHB.com 

New York -- Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

List of Preparers Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. -December2014 
Paul Carbone 

Transit Engineer 

VHB 

99 High Street 

10th Floor 

Boston, MA 2110 

617.728.7777 

PCarbone@VHB.com 

Lisa Standley 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

VHB 

101 Walnut Street 

Watertown, MA 2472 

617.924.1770 

LStandley@VHB.com 

STV

Christina Alexiou-Hidalgo 

Senior Planner 

STV 

225 Park Avenue S 

New York, NY 10003 

212.602.5874 

Christina.Alexiou-Hidalgo@STVinc.com 

HMMH 

Jason Ross 

Director of Transit Noise and Vibration 

HMMH 

77 South Bedford Street 

Burlington, MA 1803 

781.229.0707 

JRoss@HMMH.com 

Gallop Corp

Eric Ho 

Vice President 

Gallop Corporation 

451 Hungerford Drive 

#612 

Rockville, MD 

301-838-0108 

GallopCorp@aol.com 

New York -- Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

List of Preparers Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. -December2014 
New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity 

Passenger Rail Study

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendices A-12 Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – December 2014