Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan (2005)

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Canadian Pacific Railway CSX Transportation MTA Metro-North Railroad New York State Department of Transportation

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan

Final Report (Document No. M40801-11/9518/STU-137)

November 2005

Prepared by:

In association with: ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

2. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS ...... 2 2.1. Development and Calibration of the Simulation Model (2002 Baseline)...... 2 2.1.1. 2002 Baseline Inputs ...... 2 2.1.2. 2002 Baseline Simulation Results ...... 6 2.2. Future Year (2022) Baseline ...... 7 2.2.1. 2022 Baseline Inputs ...... 7 2.2.2. 2022 Baseline Simulation Results ...... 8 2.3. Future Year (2022) Alternatives...... 10 2.3.1. 2022 Scenario 1 Inputs...... 10 2.3.2. 2022 Scenario 2 Inputs...... 11 2.3.3. 2022 Scenario 3 Inputs...... 11 2.3.4. 2022 Scenario 1 Simulation Results ...... 12 2.3.5. 2022 Scenario 2 Simulation Results ...... 14 2.3.6. 2022 Scenario 3 Simulation Results ...... 15

3. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ...... 16 3.1. Proposed Capital Improvements ...... 16 3.2. Benefits...... 24 3.2.1. On-Time Performance...... 24 3.2.2. Train-Minutes of Delay...... 25 3.3. Capital Cost Estimates ...... 27 3.4. Environmental Considerations ...... 27 3.5. Potential Phasing of Proposed Projects...... 28 3.6. Next Steps ...... 28

4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FACT SHEETS ...... 29 Improvement 1: Double Track Amtrak Connection at Spuyten Duyvil...... 29 Improvement 2: Tarrytown Pocket Track and New CP 24...... 32 Improvement 7: Triple Track from CP 53 to CP 63...... 34 Improvement 10: Triple Track CP 72 to CP 75...... 37 Improvement 5: New Metro-North Poughkeepsie Yard...... 40 Improvement 11: New High Capacity Signal System ...... 43 Improvement 12: New Control Point 82 – Vicinity Hyde Park ...... 45 Improvement 13: New Control Point 99 – Near Tivoli...... 47 Improvement 14: Hudson Station Revised Configuration...... 49 Improvement 15: Stuyvesant Third Track and Interlocking Improvements...... 52 Improvement 16: New Control Point 136 – Albany-Rensselaer...... 55 Improvement 19: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Fourth Platform and Track...... 57 Improvement 20: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Platform Extensions ...... 59 Improvement 21: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Expanded Yard Capacity...... 60 Improvement 22: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Interlocking of Wye ...... 62 Improvement 23: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Interlocking of Freight Bypass...... 64

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. INTRODUCTION Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Hudson Line Railroad Corridor extends from CP Empire (Amtrak Empire Connection) and Mott Haven (CP 5) in New York City northward to CP 160 in Schenectady, NY. MTA Metro-North Railroad (MNR), National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), CSX Transportation (CSX), Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) are the users, owners, operators, and/or interested parties (“Joint Users”) of the Hudson Line.

The Joint Users performed a comprehensive study of the train operations and infrastructure needs for the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor twenty years in the future, based on the following general goals:

· Capacity improvement,

· Increased flexibilit y to ensure reliability of all train operations,

· Increased train speed,

· System cost-effectiveness improvement, and

· Enhanced safety.

Specific service goals vary by railroad. For example, Amtrak and NYSDOT jointly developed 2022 service goals to increase the number of weekday trains (from 26 to 50), provide hourly service for most of the day, and reduce local and express service run times. Anticipating that peak ridership will grow by approximately 50 percent over the next twenty years, Metro-North’s future year service plan increases the number of trains by 17 percent, to 201 revenue and non-revenue trains operating in a 24- hour period. The freight railroads seek continued viability and market growth, which requires new train slots and/or greater adherence to existing slots.

The study produced this Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan. Section 2 describes the process used to establish a future year (2022) baseline operating plan and network, establish alternative future configurations and test them using simulation tools, and select a preferred scenario of improvements to infrastructure and operations that jointly benefit the five railroad users of the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor. Section 3 describes the preferred scenario and associated benefits, costs, and environmental considerations. Section 4 contains fact sheets for each individual improvement.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 2

2. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS

The purpose of the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan is to develop an implementation plan for improvements to infrastructure and operations that jointly benefit the five railroad users of the Corridor. The RAILSIM® Simulation Software Suite, validated by CANAC using RAILS2000 simulation software, was used first to analyze current year (2002) capabilities and constraints of the study territory as they apply to each and every type of train operation: commuter trains, intercity passenger trains, through freight trains, and local freight trains. The simulation model captured the functional elements of the study territory trackage, signals (both wayside and cab), interlockings, stations, rolling stock, operating plans, and dispatching strategies. Then, the simulation tools were used to test alternative future configurations.

The following major elements of the study are summarized in Sections 2.1 through 2.3.

· Develop and calibrate the 2002 baseline simulation model by coding the existing network and operating plans;

· Establish the future year (2022) baseline network and operating plans, run the simulation, and identify future performance for a “No Build” scenario. The baseline simulations served as the benchmark against which the improvements are measured;

· Establish and test future year (2022) alternatives.

2.1. Development and Calibration of the Simulation Model (2002 Baseline)

2.1.1. 2002 Baseline Inputs

The actual physical configuration of the corridor, described below, was replicated in RAILSIM®. The Study Corridor extends from CP Empire and Mott Haven (CP 5) northward to CP 160 in Schenectady, NY. The study corridor is the area in which potential physical improvements were examined. However, trains operating on the south end of the corridor were simulated from Penn Station New York, Grand Central Terminal, and Oak Point Yard to more accurately capture existing conditions. The model assumed infinite capacity at Oak Point and Harlem River Yards, although these yards currently lack capacity to handle increased loads. At the north end, trains moving along the Chicago and Boston Lines were simulated, to the extent that they would have an effect on trains to and from Selkirk Yard.

Figures 1-5 provides a schematic representation of the Corridor, with color-coding designating the ownership of the individual components of the Corridor. It should be noted that while CSX holds title to the Corridor through the Capital District, Amtrak maintenance forces are responsible for track maintenance in the area between CP 125 (Track 2), CP 124 (Track 1) and CP 169 (9 miles west of the CP 160 Study limit). This is the only section of track in the Study area with a Maximum Authorized Speed greater than 90 MPH.

The Corridor is primarily four tracks from Grand Central to Croton-Harmon with a notable two-track “bottleneck” between CP 10 and CP 11. This is the site of the Marble Hill Cutoff, a route-shortening project implemented by the New York Central Railroad. North of Croton-Harmon, the Corridor becomes three tracks and then two tracks. There are controlled sidings at Beacon and Poughkeepsie

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 3 that provide signaled sections of third track. From Poughkeepsie to Albany-Rensselaer, the Corridor is double track. Just north of Albany-Rensselaer, the Corridor becomes single track to Schenectady, with a controlled siding available for train meets at Schenectady.

The Oak Point Link from the Harlem River Yard and Oak Point connects to the MNR Hudson Line at CP 8, adjacent to the newly-constructed Highbridge Yard. The CP 8 connection replaces an earlier CP 7 connection and was placed in service in November, 2002.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "A" EMPIRE JERVIS INWOOD

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 PENN 1 STATION NEW YORK RIVERDALE LUDLOW YONKERS GLENWOOD GREYSTONE HASTINGS DOBBS FERRY

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

W C E O S UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS N T N S

E ID MARBLE HILL C METRO-NORTH HUDSON LINE BN E HARLEM-125TH STREET MORRIS HEIGHTS T I YARD O OAK SPUYTEN N POINT DUYVIL LINK A16 CP 4 CP 5 CP 6 CP 8 CP 10 CP 11 CP 12 A15 CP 19 SS SS SS SS A12 DOMINO SUGAR A20 A7 SS 4 4 4 4 GRAND 2 2 CENTRAL 1 1 3

SS CP 7 SS HARLEM LINE M126 3,864 FEET OMITTED-- A10 SS SS MARBLE HILL A13 SS CUT OFF IN 1900 A19 A17

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Y E L S

D IRVINGTON TARRYTOWN PHILIPSE MANOR SCARBOROUGH OSSINING CROTON-HARMON CORTLANDT R A T E E R D T A S

O K R O E O R I R F B

CP 25 CP 26 CP 33 CP 34 CP 35 S34 CP 36

A33 S

HARMON A34 S YARD S SS

4 FREIGHT YARD

2 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1

S SS S SS A22 SS A29 A24 A26 A31 X X G G

5 8 8 4 . . 2 4 3 3

MNR TRACK TRACK OUTSIDE STUDY AREA GRADE CROSSING PASSENGER STATION PLATFORM LEGEND AMTRAK TRACK HBD/DED YARD TRACKS AND 1 MILEPOST CSXT TRACK CROSSOVERS SS SUBSTATION Figure 1. The Study Corridor (drawing 1 of 5) — CP Empire Interlocking to Cortlandt (Portions of “A” Interlocking and CP 4 also shown).

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 4

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

PEEKSKILL MANITOU GARRISON COLD SPRING BREAKNECK RIDGE ) E T A I V E R

U CP 53 D P (

CP 40 N A CP 48 E K (Future) O V C R A U O N D O O I T S S D N G A N

6 U I H M K 4 2 2 1 1

PROPANE SIDING BEACON LINE

X X X G G G

5 4 0 3 0 4 . . . 1 6 7 4 4 4

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

BEACON NEW HAMBURG )

POUGHKEEPSIE X S C (

T S O P

N O I I S V I D

6 7 . 5 CP 64 7 ) E

CP 58 CP 61 (Former Movable Bridge) E CP 72 CP 75 R T O T H E N A T E V A I S R T R N C P I S ( E A K T T B N A U P L A A I R B P C C

2 2 2

1 1 1

CS 3 CS

AMERICAN LUMBER

NABISCO RICE BROTHERS IBM SIDING 5 0 5 . 5 0 8 . . . 2 1 5 6 7 7

X X X G G G

MNR TRACK TRACK OUTSIDE STUDY AREA GRADE CROSSING PASSENGER STATION PLATFORM LEGEND AMTRAK TRACK HBD/DED YARD TRACKS AND 1 MILEPOST CSXT TRACK CROSSOVERS SS SUBSTATION Figure 2. The Study Corridor (drawing 2 of 5) — Peekskill through Poughkeepsie.

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 N W O T

HYDE PARK STAATSBURG RHINECLIFF Y R R A B CSXT HUDSON LINE

CP 89 CP 94

STAATSBURG SIDING BARRYTOWN SIDING

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

TIVOLI GERMANTOWN

G CP 103 N I S S O R C

E T A I V R P

TIVOLI SIDING

0 0 0 0 5 HUDSON 3 7 6 4 5 8 8 ...... 0 2 8 9 1 YARD 8 0 0 0 0 1 9 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X X G G G G G G

MNR TRACK TRACK OUTSIDE STUDY AREA GRADE CROSSING PASSENGER STATION PLATFORM LEGEND AMTRAK TRACK HBD/DED YARD TRACKS AND 1 MILEPOST CSXT TRACK CROSSOVERS SS SUBSTATION Figure 3. The Study Corridor (drawing 3 of 5) — Hyde Park to Hudson Yard.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 5

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 G N I D

HUDSON STOCKPORT NEWTON HOOK STUYVESANT N A L

K A D O

CSXT HUDSON LINE H C S

CP 114 CP 124 CP 125 (Track 2 Only) CP 115 MP 123.7 MP 125.6

(Holding Signals Only) D A O 7 G R 6 D N . I Y R T 5 R D . A 2 R T N 1 E V O A . F P B L P . RIVER TRACK STUYVESANT SIDING M 2 2 1 1 CSXT SELKIRK BRANCH (SCHODACK SUBDIVISION) 5 5 1 8

CLAVERACK I.T. 9 2 6 2 9 . . . . . 1 2 3 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X G G G G G

132 133 134 135 136 137 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

CASTLETON ON HUDSON ALBANY-RENSSELAER

CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 CP 146 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6 146.9 D D N R D

A . A L I S O E D D D D D S R N R R I R R R T T R A T . T . T . T . T . R A A V V V V V T O OVERMYER’s SIDING P P M P P P S P FREIGHT FREIGHT SIDING BYPASS RENSSELAER SHOP CP RAIL 2 2 2 2 SINGLE MAIN SW 148.2 1 1 1 1

FT. ORANGE CS PAPER CO. POST ROAD BR. WEST ALBANY RUNNING TRACK TO SPRINGFIELD, MA. TROY I.T. 5 5 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 8 2 5 5 9 2 9 ...... 3 3 4 4 4 4 S 7 9 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 I 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

M WEST ALBANY (PROSPECT) YARD X X X X X X X X T T G G G G G G I G G

MNR TRACK TRACK OUTSIDE STUDY AREA GRADE CROSSING PASSENGER STATION PLATFORM LEGEND AMTRAK TRACK HBD/DED YARD TRACKS AND 1 MILEPOST CSXT TRACK CROSSOVERS SS SUBSTATION Figure 4. The Study Corridor (drawing 4 of 5) — Hudson to CP 146.

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

COLONIE CARMAN SCHENECTADY

CP 156 CP 159 CP 160 .

156.5 159.6 159.9 D D . A R A E N . I V . O B . A D R O D A R S D R L R N L N R A L S E I R I S R D H T O E O T T R R C N C T A O Y C O N O U E T I L M C H W R S

SINGLE MAIN SINGLE MAIN SINGLE MAIN

151.4 CONTROLLED SIDING

NEW KAMER INDUSTRIAL TRACKS CARMAN INDUSTRIAL TRACK CARMAN BRCH SCHENECTADY CHEMICALS G.E. LEAD CP RAIL

2 YANK WASTE 9 3 6 5 6 1 7 8 4 4 9 2 6 2 4

. . . CP 485 . . . . . 9 3 4 3 4 4 5 6 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X X X X G G G G G G G G

167 168 169 170

HOFFMANS

CP 169 169.9 D D R R

T . T . V V P P

SINGLE MAIN

CSXT SELKIRK BRANCH 6 2 9 5 . . 7 8 6 6 1 1

X X G G

MNR TRACK TRACK OUTSIDE STUDY AREA GRADE CROSSING PASSENGER STATION PLATFORM LEGEND AMTRAK TRACK HBD/DED YARD TRACKS AND 1 MILEPOST CSXT TRACK CROSSOVERS SS SUBSTATION Figure 5. The Study Corridor (drawing 5 of 5) — Colonie to CP 160 (trackage from CP 160 to CP 169 also shown).

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 6

In 2002, a total of 213 trains operated on the corridor each weekday, as shown below. Of the 36 Amtrak weekday train movements on the Corridor, 26 represent revenue trips between Albany- Rensselaer and New York Penn Station.

Table 1: 2002 Baseline Number of Trains Operated on the Hudson Line

Operator Trains Operated Amtrak 36 CSX (Hudson Line freights only) 9 CP 1 MNR 172 Total 218

2.1.2. 2002 Baseline Simulation Results

The following table summarizes simulated on-time performance and average train minutes of delay per 100 miles operated. In addition to generating these statistics, the simulation highlighted many specific areas where performance was compromised. These observations, along with results of the 2022 baseline simulation, were subsequently used to develop ideas for capital improvements.

Table 2: Summary Statistics for the 2002 Baseline Simulation

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE

Amtrak 10:00 threshold 93% CP/CSX 20:00 threshold 93% MNR 5:59 threshold 94% AVERAGE TRAIN MINUTES OF

DELAY PER 100 MILES OPERATED Running 5.13 Amtrak Stopped 1.99 Total 7.12 Running 2.39 CP Stopped 3.02 Total 5.41 Running 3.87 CSX Stopped 7.76 Total 11.63 Running 12.49 MNR Stopped 7.32 Total 19.81 Running 8.53 Total Stopped 5.14 Total 13.67

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 7

2.2. Future Year (2022) Baseline

2.2.1. 2022 Baseline Inputs

The 2022 baseline network, shown in Figure 2, included capital improvements completed since 2002 (such as the new CP 53 on Metro-North), projects under construction (such as CP 39 on Metro- North), and the following projects planned but not yet in construction:

· New CP 46 Interlocking on Metro-North, to replace CP 48, · Double tracking between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, · Attendant improvements at Albany-Rensselaer to support the double -tracking. Albany-Rensselaer was simulated with a three-platform track configuration. Full “build out” of Albany-Rensselaer, known as CDTA Phase 4, was not included, as this phase is not funded at present.

As shown in the table below, the level of service growth between 2002 and 2022 for the four railroads operating in the study corridor varied dramatically.

Table 3: 2022 Baseline Number of Trains Operated

TRAINS OPERATED

2002 2022 Percent Change Amtrak 36 58 61% CP 1 6 500% CSX 9 22 144% MNR 172 194 13% Total 218 280 28%

The number of Amtrak one-way revenue trips between Albany-Rensselaer and New York Penn Station increases from 26 in 2002 to 49 in the 2002 Baseline, an increase of 88 percent. (Additional Amtrak train movements were included to reflect non-revenue movements between Albany- Rensselaer and Schenectady, as well as Albany Station movements associated with the Amtrak Lake Shore Limited.) Amtrak’s 2022 operating plan includes a weekday non-stop round trip between Albany-Rensselaer and New York Penn Station with a scheduled run time of 1:59. Those trains, using RTL-III rolling stock with a 110 MPH maximum speed on the 2022 baseline infrastructure, are intended to test the ability of the planned 2022 infrastructure to support a two-hour trip time.

There were only minor changes in rolling stock assumptions, as Metro-North phased in its M7’s, Amtrak phased in the NYSDOT Turboliners and CP operated AC4400 and SD70 locomotive-hauled trains. There was no assumed change in Dispatching Data.

The maximum system speed of 110 MPH remained in place. This speed applies only to passenger trains and only in the segment between CP 142 and CP 124. The only passenger train speed change was a reduction in the Maximum Authorized Speed to 80 MPH in the vicinity of CP 53 (MP 51.7 to MP 53.1). The only freight train speed change was related to the removal of the Hot Box/Dragging Equipment Detectors associated with existing CP 48. The current 15 MPH freight train speed restriction, for northbound trains only, between MP 46 and CP 48 was lifted. No separate (higher) freight train Maximum Authorized Speed profile was assumed for intermodal trains.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 8

2.2.2. 2022 Baseline Simulation Results

The 2022 Baseline Simulation showed insufficient infrastructure to reliably accommodate the levels of service projected by the four rail operators in the Corridor. As shown in Table 4, the 2022 baseline simulation results show a marked increase in signal delay – in aggregate and on a per-train basis – when compared to the 2002 results. Not surprisingly, there was a marked decrease in on-time performance for all four operators of the Study Corridor.

The simulation showed that the scheduled running time of the non-stop RTL III express trains between Albany Rensselaer and Penn Station New York was not achievable. Reliable operation with a 1:59 scheduled running time would require extensive track speed improvements and infrastructure enhancements in order to avoid many of the train conflicts detailed below.

Table 4: Summary Statistics for the 2022 Baseline Simulation 2022 Baseline 2002 Baseline ("No Build") TRAINS OPERATED AND PERCENT INCREASE FROM 2002 Amtrak 36 58 61% CP 1 6 500% CSX 9 22 144% MNR 172 194 13% Total 218 280 28% ON-TIME PERFORMANCE Amtrak 10:00 threshold 93% 80% CP/CSX 20:00 threshold 93% 90% MNR 5:59 threshold 94% 76% AVERAGE TRAIN MINUTES OF

DELAY PER 100 MILES OPERATED Running 5.13 7.24 Amtrak Stopped 1.99 5.97 Total 7.12 13.21 Running 2.39 9.98 CP Stopped 3.02 15.81 Total 5.41 25.79 Running 3.87 10.31 CSX Stopped 7.76 30.13 Total 11.63 40.44 Running 12.49 15.16 MNR Stopped 7.32 5.1 Total 19.81 20.26 Running 8.53 11.49 Total Stopped 5.14 7.16 Total 13.67 18.65

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 9

The following segments of the network were found to have significant capacity constraints:

· Upper Hudson Line (CP 142 to CP 75) – Train delays and increases in running times were incurred by Amtrak trains as the line was effectively single -tracked in sections as freight trains proceeded in either direction. All of the interlockings in this territory support 120 code (45 MPH for passenger trains) diverging movements, which can represent a significant time penalty when compared to the normally programmed non-diverging movement. In addition, Hudson Station “hold out” delays enforced by the CSX Dispatcher at CP 114 and CP 115 interlockings, caused passenger train delays. There were a total of eight passenger-passenger train hold out delays or near-delays (trains operating within a minute or two of each other at either one of the protecting interlockings) at Hudson in the 2022 simulation.

· Poughkeepsie (CP 75 to CP 72) – There is insufficient terminal capacity at Poughkeepsie to originate/terminate the planned level of Metro-North trains and, at the same time, accommodate the planned level of through Amtrak trains. The capacity of the station itself, with three platform tracks, could be adequate if non-platform locations for turning Metro-North trains were available. However, at present, the only alternative locations are yard tracks, which require a restricted speed move over hand-thrown switches with electric locks.

· Poughkeepsie to Peekskill (CP 72 to CP 39) – This segment suffered from three shortcomings in the 2022 baseline simulation. First, the lack of regularly-spaced interlocked crossovers to support train “run arounds” (higher average speed Amtrak trains overtaking lower average speed Metro- North trains in the same direction) hampered Amtrak movements. Second, the relatively long signal clearing times in this segment, stemming from an older signal system with long blocks and virtually no use of the 120 code rate (45 MPH for passenger trains), hampered following Metro- North and Amtrak train movements. Third, the lack of extended sections of third track made it difficult to dispatch freight trains at any time except the middle of the night and made it difficult to support Amtrak overtakes at any time except the early morning hours. The only section of third track in the territory – the controlled siding between CP 58 and CP 61 – supports only 30 MPH operation for passenger trains and, effectively, only 15 MPH operation for freight trains (due to LSL freight train cab signal constraints). In addition, the third track is “on the side” rather than “in the middle” where it could be used effectively for overtakes in both directions.

· Marble Hill Cutoff (CP 11 to CP 10) – This two-track constraint experienced some increased signal delay and train congestion as a result of the increased Metro-North service and the increased freight train service.

· Metro-North Mainline to Hudson Line “Sorting” Territory (CP 12 to CP 5) – This territory, which includes the Marble Hill Cutoff, is comprised of CP 6, CP 8, CP 10, CP 11 and CP 12. These five interlockings serve to sort trains operating between the Metro-North mainline and Oak Point Link on the south and the Hudson Line on the north. During both morning and evening peak periods, there are a large number of Metro-North trains that arrive at CP 5 operating northward on Track 4 (“left-handed”). These trains must be crossed over to operate “right-handed” on the Hudson Line, in the face of southward traffic. CSX and CP freight trains entering the Study corridor at CP 8 require the same type of routing.

· Spuyten-Duyvil to Inwood (CP 12 to CP Inwood) – This single track segment suffered from inevitable delays between opposing direction Amtrak trains that operated in this section. Amtrak’s proposed 2022 service increase (58 daily train movements versus 36 daily movements in 2002) increases the probability of a delay in this section.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 10

2.3. Future Year (2022) Alternatives

2.3.1. 2022 Scenario 1 Inputs

The parameters for Scenario 1 were developed at a day-long charette attended by approximately 15 professionals from Amtrak, CSX, MNR, and NYSDOT. The charette participants were guided by the results of the 2022 Baseline Simulation and their own knowledge of Hudson Line operations and infrastructure. Through facilitated discussion and breakout sessions, the Charette participants created Scenario 1, a “common sense” package of 24 potential improvements:

· Double Track Amtrak Connection at Spuyten Duyvil · Tarrytown Pocket Track and New CP 24 · Tarrytown Station Revised Configuration · New CP 27 · CP 39 Parallel Crossover · CP46 Crossover Improvements · CP 53 to CP 63 Triple Track · New CP 66 · CP 72 to CP 75 Triple Track · New MNR Poughkeepsie Yard · New High-Capacity Signal System from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie · New CP 82 · New CP 99 · Hudson Station Revised Configuration · Stuyvesant Third Track and Interlocking Improvements · New CP 140 · Albany-Rensselaer Station-Fourth Platform and Track · Albany-Rensselaer Station-Extend Platform Tracks · Albany-Rensselaer Station-Expanded Yard Capacity · Albany-Rensselaer Station-Interlocking of Wye · Albany-Rensselaer Station-Interlocking of Freight Bypass · New CP 156 Crossovers · New CP 161 and Passenger-Train Pocket · Passenger Train Speed Improvements

The pass/fail criteria for the evaluation of 2022 build scenarios were on-time performance and signal delays per 100 train miles operated equal to, or superior to, the 2002 baseline simulation results for each of the four railroads, under stochastic (randomized) simulation criteria.

The same schedule as the 2022 Baseline scenario was used in the Scenario 1 database. Default routings were changed for many trains to take advantage of the important new capabilities at CP 161, at Albany-Rensselaer, at CP 124 (Schodack), between Mileposts 63 and 53 (new third main track) and at CP 13/CP 12.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 11

2.3.2. 2022 Scenario 2 Inputs

Scenario 2 retained the same set of improvements as Scenario 1, but used a revised 2022 operating plan based on a “clean slate” rescheduling effort for the corridor. The scheduled running times, in turn, were based on RAILSIM® “single train” simulations, to which Amtrak and Metro-North added schedule margin for their train services. CSX and CP also provided some changes to their freight train operating plans for the Scenario 2 simulation.

The key differences between Scenario 2 and Scenario 1 are summarized below:

· Scheduling of trains in the two/three track segment between CP 39 (Peekskill) and CP 72 (Poughkeepsie) such that same-direction overtakes are minimized. This allows the third track between CP 53 and CP 63 to be used primarily for unscheduled passenger train overtakes (when Metro-North and Amtrak trains are “out of slot”) and for freight train overtakes,

· Scheduling of trains in the four track segment between CP 12 (Spuyten Duyvil) and CP 33 (Croton-Harmon) during most off-peak periods such that same-direction overtakes are minimized. This allows Tracks 1 and 2 to be used for freight movements at most times of the day, without restriction,

· Scheduling of Beacon turns to use the Track 3 Tail Track at CP 63, rather than turning on the mainline at Beacon, allowing the third track between CP 53 and CP 63 to be used primarily for unscheduled passenger train overtakes (when Metro-North and Amtrak trains are “out of slot”) and for freight train overtakes,

Scheduling of most 400-series Metro-North trains to use the Track 5 Pocket Track at CP 24, rather than turning on the mainline at CP 19 or at CP 25 (Tarrytown Station). This minimizes the possibility of conflicts between turning trains and through trains on the same track.

2.3.3. 2022 Scenario 3 Inputs

After evaluating the results of the 2022 Scenario 2 simulation, the Joint Users retained the same passenger train operating plan as Scenario 2, but removed a number of the less-important capital improvements to create Scenario 3. The goal of Scenario 3 was to achieve comparable on-time performance to Scenario 2, but with a lower capital cost. In addition, discussions with CSX revealed that its future freight train operating plan was meant to retain the four existing CSX Corridor road freights as well. CSX Scenario 3 train volume, therefore, increased by four weekday trains when compared with Scenarios 1 and 2.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 12

2.3.4. 2022 Scenario 1 Simulation Results

Table 5 presents the results of the simulation for 2022 Scenario 1. Metro-North OTP showed a modest improvement from the 2022 Baseline (82 percent versus 76 percent) but did not recover when compared with the 94 percent level attained in the 2002 Randomized simulation. There are several important causes of the inferior performance of Metro-North trains, on a per-train basis, in the 2022 Scenario 1 simulation:

· Dwell times were increased from 25 seconds (2002) to 30 seconds (2022) for all passenger trains within MNR territory. This has a much more profound impact on MNR trains than it does on Amtrak trains.

· Amtrak trains were allowed to run ahead of the 2022 Baseline schedules (with the assumption that future timetables would be adjusted to reflect new scheduled departure times) whereas Metro-North trains were held to the scheduled departure times of the 2022 Baseline. This meant that all Amtrak trains could take advantage of faster running times at all times, whereas only Metro-North trains that are behind schedule could take advantage of faster running times. A review of southbound Metro-North trains at New Hamburg in the 2022 Scenario 1 simulation reveals 15 trains waiting for time for an average of 37 extra seconds of dwell (that is, a total average dwell time in the simulation of 67 seconds). These MNR trains, when delayed later in their trips, cannot recoup this lost time.

· While the Triple Track between Mileposts 53 and 63 provides significant benefits in terms of capacity, reliability and travel time, the MNR/Amtrak 2022 Operating Plan had not been optimized to focus most overtakes in this segment. While the Triple Track supported three southbound and five northbound Amtrak overtakes of MNR (as well as more than a dozen freight train overtakes) in the Scenario 1 simulation, there were cases where the overtakes resulted in some delay to MNR trains. While the simulation may have optimized the “greater good” as far as minimizing train-minutes of signal delay, it may not have optimized on-time performance of the two passenger railroads due to lack of scheduled overtakes.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 13

Table 5: Summary Statistics for 2022 Scenario 1

2002 2022 Baseline "Common Sense" Baseline ("No Build") Scenario 1 OPERATING PLAN SIMULATED Spring Operating Plans Utilized as Provided by 2002 Operators TRAINS OPERATED AND PERCENT INCREASE FROM 2002 Amtrak 36 58 61% 58 61% CP 1 6 500% 6 500% CSX 9 22 144% 22 144% MNR 172 194 13% 194 13% Total 218 280 28% 280 28% ON-TIME PERFORMANCE

Amtrak 10:00 threshold 93% 80% 98% CP/CSX 20:00 threshold 93% 90% 93% MNR 5:59 threshold 94% 76% 82% AVERAGE TRAIN MINUTES OF DELAY

PER 100 MILES OPERATED Running 5.13 7.24 7.48 Amtrak Stopped 1.99 5.97 2.10 Total 7.12 13.21 9.58 Running 2.39 9.98 6.46 CP Stopped 3.02 15.81 22.00 Total 5.41 25.79 28.46 Running 3.87 10.31 4.63 CSX Stopped 7.76 30.13 30.80 Total 11.63 40.44 35.43 Running 12.49 15.16 15.73 MNR Stopped 7.32 5.1 9.46 Total 19.81 20.26 25.19 Running 8.53 11.49 10.31 Total Stopped 5.14 7.16 10.76 Total 13.67 18.65 21.07

With the Scenario 1 improvements and no other trains in service (i.e. a “best case” scenario), the trip time for the RTL-III non-stop train from Albany-Rensselaer to New York was reduced by 7 minutes compared to the 2022 Baseline. This significant trip time improvement is due to higher curve speeds in the Scenario 1 database, as well as the significant speed improvements associated with CP 13 and reconfigured CP 12 (at Spuyten Duyvil). However, additional infrastructure improvements and/or a maximum authorized speed increase above 110 MPH would be needed to reliably operate a 1:59 non- stop train between Albany-Rensselaer and New York.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 14

2.3.5. 2022 Scenario 2 Simulation Results

Table 6 presents the results of the simulation for 2022 Scenario 2. The results show a significant improvement in Metro-North on-time performance when compared with Scenario 1. The Metro- North OTP percentage of 93% (based on a 5:59 threshold at final passenger station) is only one percentage point less than the baseline statistic (94% for the 2002 randomized simulation). The Amtrak 100% OTP value (based on a 9:59 threshold) exceeded the Scenario 1 results and is seven percentage points higher than the 2002 randomized baseline. Freight train OTP dropped slightly, to 91%, from the 93% statistic achieved in the 2022 Scenario 1 and 2002 randomized baseline simulations.

Table 6: Summary Statistics for 2022 Scenario 2

2002 2022

Baseline "Common Sense" Baseline ("No Build") Scenario 1 Scenario 2 OPERATING PLANS SIMULATED Operating Plans Utilized as Provided Amtrak/MNR Spring 2002 by Operators Operations Coordinated TRAINS OPERATED AND PERCENT INCREASE FROM 2002 Amtrak 36 58 61% 58 61% 58 61% CP 1 6 500% 6 500% 6 500% CSX 9 22 144% 22 144% 22 144% MNR 172 194 13% 194 13% 196 14% Total 218 280 28% 280 28% 282 29% ON-TIME PERFORMANCE Amtrak 10:00 threshold 93% 80% 98% 100% CP/CSX 20:00 threshold 93% 90% 93% 91% MNR 5:59 threshold 94% 76% 82% 93% AVERAGE TRAIN MINUTES OF DELAY PER 100 MILES OPERATED Running 5.13 7.24 7.48 7.64 Amtrak Stopped 1.99 5.97 2.10 1.47 Total 7.12 13.21 9.58 9.11 Running 2.39 9.98 6.46 7.48 CP Stopped 3.02 15.81 22.00 39.73 Total 5.41 25.79 28.46 47.21 Running 3.87 10.31 4.63 10.92 CSX Stopped 7.76 30.13 30.80 34.80 Total 11.63 40.44 35.43 45.72 Running 12.49 15.16 15.73 9.33 MNR Stopped 7.32 5.1 9.46 1.79 Total 19.81 20.26 25.19 11.12 Running 8.53 11.49 10.31 8.77 Total Stopped 5.14 7.16 10.76 7.30 Total 13.67 18.65 21.07 16.07

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS Page 15

2.3.6. 2022 Scenario 3 Simulation Results

The results of the 2022 Scenario 3 simulation are presented in Table 7. Scenario 3 met the criteria established by the Joint Users and was adopted as the preferred scenario. The benefits, costs, and other considerations for Scenario 3 are presented as the Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan in Section 3.

Table 7: Summary Statistics for the 2022 Scenario 3 Simulation

2002 2022 "Lower Cost" Baseline "Common Sense" Baseline Scenario 3 ("No Build") Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (Preferred) OPERATING PLANS SIMULATED

Amtrak/MNR Amtrak/MNR Operating Plans Utilized as Provided Spring 2002 Operations Coordinated; by Operators Coordinated Freight Optimized

TRAINS OPERATED AND PERCENT INCREASE FROM 2002 Amtrak 36 58 61% 58 61% 58 61% 58 61% 500 CP 1 6 500% 6 500% 6 6 500% % 144 CSX 9 22 144% 22 144% 22 22 144% % MNR 172 194 13% 194 13% 196 14% 196 14% Total 218 280 28% 280 28% 282 29% 282 29% ON-TIME PERFORMANCE Amtrak 10:00 threshold 93% 80% 98% 100% 100% CP/CSX 20:00 threshold 93% 90% 93% 91% 94% MNR 5:59 threshold 94% 76% 82% 93% 95% AVERAGE TRAIN MINUTES OF DELAY PER 100 MILES OPERATED Amtrak Running 5.13 7.24 7.48 7.64 7.55 Stopped 1.99 5.97 2.10 1.47 1.51 Total 7.12 13.21 9.58 9.11 9.06 CP Running 2.39 9.98 6.46 7.48 10.55 Stopped 3.02 15.81 22.00 39.73 27.93 Total 5.41 25.79 28.46 47.21 38.48 CSX Running 3.87 10.31 4.63 10.92 10.88 Stopped 7.76 30.13 30.80 34.80 29.50 Total 11.63 40.44 35.43 45.72 40.38 MNR Running 12.49 15.16 15.73 9.33 9.84 Stopped 7.32 5.1 9.46 1.79 1.84 Total 19.81 20.26 25.19 11.12 11.68 Total Running 8.53 11.49 10.31 8.77 9.15 Stopped 5.14 7.16 10.76 7.30 6.76 Total 13.67 18.65 21.07 16.07 15.91

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 16

3. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The following sections describe the capital improvements that comprise the Transportation Plan, the benefits of those projects, their capital and operating costs, and environmental considerations.

3.1. Proposed Capital Improvements

As described earlier, the preferred scenario is a subset of the “common sense” list of projects originally developed at a charette attended by the Joint Users. The schematics below illustrate the potential improvements. Table 8 describes the improvements and summarizes their benefits.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "A" EMPIRE JERVIS INWOOD MODIFIED

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 PENN 1 STATION NEW YORK RIVERDALE LUDLOW YONKERS GLENWOOD GREYSTONE HASTINGS DOBBS FERRY 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS METRO-NORTH HUDSON LINE HARLEM-125TH STREET MORRIS HEIGHTS BN MARBLE HILL OAK Yard SPUYTEN POINT DUYVIL LINK CP 12 CP 13 A16 CP 4 CP 5 CP 6 CP 8 CP 10 CP 11 MODIFIED NEW A15 CP 19 SS SS SS SS DOMINO SUGAR A20 A7 4 4 4 4 GRAND 2 2 CENTRAL 1 1 3

SS CP 7 SS M126 HARLEM LINE 3,864 FEET OMITTED-- A10 SS SS MARBLE HILL 0 7 A13 . SS 2 A19 CUT OFF IN 1900 2 #

3 A17 #

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Y E L

S IRVINGTON TARRYTOWN PHILIPSE MANOR SCARBOROUGH OSSINING CROTON-HARMON CORTLANDT D R A T E E R D T S A O K R O E O R I R F B CP 24 CP 25 CP 26

NEW MODIFIED REMOVED CP 33 CP 34 CP 35 S34 CP 36 CP 39 S A33 S

HARMONYARD A34

S SS S

4 FREIGHT YARD

2 2 4 4

1 1 2 2

3 3 1 1

S SS S A22 SS A29 A26 A31 5 0 X X 7 . G G 1 2 2 # # 5 8 3 . 8 . 4 2 4 # 3 3

MNR TRACK TRACK OUTSIDE STUDY AREA GRADE CROSSING PASSENGER STATION PLATFORM LEGEND YARD TRACKS AND AMTRAK TRACK CROSSOVERS HBD/DED 1 MILEPOST 2022 Joint Users Scenario 3 Schematic CSXT TRACK JOINT USERS SCENARIO 3 SS SUBSTATION

Figure 6. 2022 Preferred Scenario Configuration (drawing 1 of 5) — "A" Interlocking to Cortlandt.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 17

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

PEEKSKILL MANITOU GARRISON COLD SPRING BREAKNECK RIDGE CROTON-HARMON TO POUGHKEEPSIE NEW HIGH CAPACITY SIGNALING WITH 120 F1 / 120 F2 FUNCTIONALITY ) E T A V I CP 53 E R U D P (

N CP 46 A MODIFIED K E O V C R A U O N D O O I T S S N G D

6 A N U I M K H 4

2 2

1 1

PROPANE SIDING BEACON LINE L 7 .

L 2 X X X G G G A 3

5 4 0 # 3 0 4 . . . 1 6 7 4 4 4

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

BEACON NEW HAMBURG )

POUGHKEEPSIE X S C ( T S O P N I O I S V I D 6 7 . 5

CP 58 CP 61 CP 63 CP 64 CP 72 CP 73 7 E )

(Former Movable Bridge) E CP 75 R MODIFIED REMOVED NEW T MODIFIED NEW T O H E N A T E V A I S R R T C N P I S ( E A K T B T A P N U R L A A I B P C C #32.7 2 2 2

1 1 1

3 3 3

AMERICAN LUMBER NABISCO RICE BROTHERS IBM SIDING

5 7 5 0 7 0 5 . 5 . . 1 0 1 8 . . . 2 2 1 2 5 # # 3 6 7 3 7

# X X # W X

G G E D G N R A Y

Figure 7. 2022 Preferred Scenario Configuration (drawing 2 of 5) — Peekskill through Poughkeepsie.

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 N W O T

HYDE PARK STAATSBURG RHINECLIFF Y R R A B CSXT HUDSON LINE

CP 82 CP 89 CP 94 NEW

BARRYTOWN STAATSBURG SIDING SIDING 7 . 2 3 #

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

TIVOLI GERMANTOWN

G CP 99 CP 103 N I S

S NEW O R C E T A V I R P

TIVOLI SIDING 7 . 0 0 0 0 5

3 2 7 6 4 5 8 HUDSON . . . . . 8 3

. 0 2 8 9 1 YARD 8 # 0 0 0 0 1 9 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X X G G G G G G

Figure 8. 2022 Preferred Scenario Configuration (drawing 3 of 5) — Hyde Park to Hudson Yard.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 18

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 G N I D

HUDSON STOCKPORT NEWTON HOOK STUYVESANT N A L

K A D O

CSXT HUDSON LINE H C S

CP 114 CP 115 CP 123 CP 124 CP 125 REMOVED NEW REMOVED MODIFIED D A O G

M R D N #20 R I Y R T

O R D W F . A R T N E AT E V O A N F P B L PL RIVER TRACK 2 2 1 1 CSXT SELKIRK BRANCH (SCHODACK SUBDIVISION) 0 0 5 5 2 1 8 2

CLAVERACK I.T. 9 2 6 2 9 . . # . . # . 1 2 3 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X G G G G G

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

CASTLETON ON HUDSON ALBANY-RENSSELAER See separate drawing showing CDTA Phase 4

CP 143 CP LAB CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 CP 146 CP 136 CP 141 143.6 146.9 NEW REMOVED 142.0 142.4 D D N R D

A . A L S I O E D D D D D S R I N T R R R R R T . . . R . . A T T T T T R A A V V V V V T O P P P M P P S P FREIGHT FREIGHT OVERMYER’s SIDING SIDING BYPASS RENSSELAER SHOP CP RAIL 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 FT. ORANGE 1 PAPER CO. POST ROAD BR.

7 TO SPRINGFIELD, MA. TROY I.T. . 5 5 9 0 2 2 0 8

0 8 0 2 3 9 2 2 9 WEST ALBANY RUNNING TRACK ...... 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 S 7 9 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 I # 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M

X X X X X X T X X T G G G G G G I G G WEST ALBANY (PROSPECT) YARD

Figure 9. 2022 Preferred Scenario Configuration (drawing 4 of 5) — Hudson to CP 146.

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

COLONIE CARMAN SCHENECTADY

CP 159 CP 160 CP 156 . D R A I N . . B O D A D S R R R I N R A S H T O E T T C N T A Y C O U E T H W R S

SINGLE MAIN

151.4

CSX CARMAN BR.. SCHENECTADY G.E. LEAD

CHEMICALS 6 5 6 1 7 9 2 6 2 4

CP 485 . . . . . NEW KAMER INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

YANK WASTE 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X G G G G G

167 168 169 170

HOFFMANS

CP 169 169.9 D D R R

. . T T V V P P

SINGLE MAIN

CSXT SELKIRK BRANCH 6 2 9 5 . . 7 8 6 6 1 1

X X G G

Figure 10. 2022 Preferred Scenario Configuration (drawing 5 of 5) — Colonie to CP 169.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 19

Proposed Track Configuration for Signal Upgrades per Specification covering CDTA Phase 4 and Double Track between CP141 and CP145

141 142 143 144

ALBANY-RENSSELAER CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6

FREIGHT BYPASS RENSSELAER SHOP FREIGHT SIDING

To New York 1

Pocket Track

To Springfield, MA POST ROAD BR.

Figure 11. Proposed Track Configuration for Signal Upgrades per Specification covering CDTA Phase 4 and Double Track between CP 141 and CP 145

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 20

Table 8: Assessment of Simulation Results Specific to Each Scenario 3 “Common Sense” Improvement

"Common Sense" Improvements Associated Operating Benefits

Reliability/Schedule Name Purpose Travel Time Improvement Capacity Improvement Recoverability Improvement Eliminate conflicts between opposing Amtrak trains at and between CP Inwood and CP 12. Medium Medium Medium Double Track Amtrak Connection Allow Amtrak trains entering and (Amtrak and MNR benefit, (Amtrak is the only direct (Amtrak and MNR benefit, at Spuyten Duyvil exiting the Hudson Line at CP 13 via some freight secondary benefit) the #32.7 crossovers to more quickly beneficiary) some freight secondary benefit)

traverse the diverging route, which will decrease conf lict delays to MNR trains. Enable trains “turning” at existing CP 25 to do so without having to “change Tarrytown Pocket Track High High ends” while on and blocking a None and New CP 24 (MNR and Amtrak benefit) (MNR and Amtrak benefit) mainline track. This will enhance capacity and reliability. Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays. This set of improvements includes additional #32.7 turnouts at CP 53, CP 58 and a new CP 63 (replacing CP 61). A Tail Track is provided at CP 63 to Low High High CP 53 to CP 63 Triple-Track enable trains “turning” at Beacon to (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and do so without having to “change freight railroads) freight railroads) freight railroads) ends” while on and blocking a mainline track. This will enhance capacity and reliability. The existing controlled siding will be upgraded and replaced by the new third track. Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays. This set of improvements includes a new Medium Medium Medium “parallel” #32.7 crossover at CP 72 CP 72 to CP 75 Triple-Track (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and and a new “ladder” at a new CP 73. freight railroads) freight railroads) freight railroads) CP 73 is to provide interlocked access to a new and consolidated MNR yard located on the east side of the railroad.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 21

Table 8: Assessment of Simulation Results Specific to Each Scenario 3 “Common Sense” Improvement

"Common Sense" Improvements Associated Operating Benefits

Reliability/Schedule Name Purpose Travel Time Improvement Capacity Improvement Recoverability Improvement The existing controlled siding will be upgraded and replaced by the new third track. Provide MNR with a single yard Low Medium Medium having interlocked access and that is New MNR Poughkeepsie Yard (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and capable of storing approximately 15 freight railroads) freight railroads) freight railroads) trainsets. Provide for close-headway high- New High-Capacity Signal System capacity passenger-train operations Low Very High Medium from Croton-Harmon to while maintaining the ability to (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and (Benefits to MNR, Amtrak and Poughkeepsie. operate freight trains at 50 and even freight railroads) freight railroads) freight railroads) 60 MPH. Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays. Medium Medium Optimize capacity of the double-track Medium (Benefits to Amtrak and freight (Benefits to Amtrak and freight New CP 82 section in this territory by installing (Benefit to Amtrak only). new #32.7 crossovers. This railroads) railroads) configuration will minimize delays during contingent track-outage conditions. Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays. Medium Medium Optimize capacity of the double-track Medium (Benefits to Amtrak and freight (Benefits to Amtrak and freight New CP 99 section in this territory by installing (Benefit to Amtrak only) new #32.7 crossovers. This railroads) railroads) configuration will minimize delays during contingent track-outage conditions. Install new high level station platform access to both main tracks. This will enhance safety and minimize station Medium Medium Hudson Station Revised dwell times by eliminating the need Medium for passengers to have to cross a (Benefits to Amtrak and freight (Benefits to Amtrak and freight Configuration (Benefit to Amtrak only) mainline track when boarding or railroads) railroads) exiting trains on Track 2. This will also eliminate conflict delays by allowing simultaneous train

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 22

Table 8: Assessment of Simulation Results Specific to Each Scenario 3 “Common Sense” Improvement

"Common Sense" Improvements Associated Operating Benefits

Reliability/Schedule Name Purpose Travel Time Improvement Capacity Improvement Recoverability Improvement operations to be in the station at the same time. Retire CP 115 holding signals. Low to Medium Low to Medium Provide enhanced meet/pass (Modest benefits to Amtrak and (Modest benefits to Amtrak and capabilities to minimize future train freight railroads based on freight railroads based on congestion and delays. This set of Scenario 3 operating plan. Scenario 3 operating plan. improvements includes a new CP Improvement would be rated Improvement would be rated 123 and an extension of the “Medium” under an alternative “Medium” under an alternative Schodack Subdivision (Track 4) that Stuyvesant Third Track and Low operating plan that features operating plan that features can function as a siding. It also Interlocking Improvements (Benefit to Amtrak only). additional freight movements, additional freight movements, includes additional #20 crossovers at especially CPR movements, especially CPR movements, CP 125, providing a three track outside of the midnight time outside of the midnight time universal interlocking configuration period and/or greater frequency period and/or greater frequency there. This configuration will minimize of opposing freight movements of opposing freight movements delays during contingent track- desiring to use the Schodack desiring to use the Schodack outage conditions. Retire CP 124. Subdivision) Subdivision) Provide enhanced meet/pass Low capabilities to minimize future train (Benefits to Amtrak and CPR Medium congestion and delays by providing a Low only; capacity benefit would be New CP 136 (Benefits to Amtrak and CPR freight-train “pocket” between CP 136 (Benefit to Amtrak only) greater if CPR scheduled and CP 142. The size of the CP 136 additional midday freight only) crossovers will be #32.7. movements)

Increase station capacity and Low Albany-Rensselaer Station – Medium High flexibility by providing four (4) station- (Benefit primarily to Amtrak Fourth Platform and Track (Benefit to Amtrak only) (Benefit to Amtrak only) platform tracks per the CDTA Phase with some benefit to CPR) 4 plan. Extend the station platforms north to Albany-Rensselaer Station – accommodate longer trains and Low Medium Medium Extend Station Platforms minimize the station dwell times of (Benefit to Amtrak only) (Benefit to Amtrak only) (Benefit to Amtrak only) such longer trains. Albany-Rensselaer Station – Expand yard capacity to Medium Expanded Yard Capacity accommodate future storage and None (Benefit to Amtrak only) None maintenance requirements. Power and interlock the three Medium Medium Albany-Rensselaer Station – switches of the Troy Industrial Track (Benefit primarily to Amtrak, (Benefit primarily to Amtrak, Interlocking of Wye None Wye to speed up the turning of with some benefit to CPR) with some benefit to CPR) locomotives and trains, and to

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. HUDSON LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 23

Table 8: Assessment of Simulation Results Specific to Each Scenario 3 “Common Sense” Improvement

"Common Sense" Improvements Associated Operating Benefits

Reliability/Schedule Name Purpose Travel Time Improvement Capacity Improvement Recoverability Improvement minimize the time that a main track is blocked by such switching operations. This will enhance capacity and reliability. Power and interlock the two switches of the Freight Bypass Track to speed up movements through this track, Low Low and to minimize the time that the (CPR would be the principal (CPR would be the principal main tracks are blocked by such train beneficiary, with occasional beneficiary, with occasional Albany-Rensselaer Station – movements. benefits to CSX as well. benefits to CSX as well. None Interlocking of Freight Bypass This improvement is only However, number of “high and However, number of “high and recommended for inclusion if there wide” cars operated through wide” cars operated through are a number of wide-car movements the station complex is low the station complex is low that need to use this track. CSX today.) today). should research this issue and provide the frequency when a freight train will have to use this track. Where feasible and practical, reduce passenger-train trip times by increasing passenger-train speeds to that allowed by six (6) inches of Very High Low Low Passenger Train Speed superelevation and four (4) inches of (Benefits to Amtrak and MNR) (Benefits to Amtrak and MNR) (Benefits to Amtrak and MNR) Improvements unbalance (cant deficiency).

On MNR at and south of Croton- Harmon, speeds are to be increased to but not exceeding the existing signal design speeds (SDSs).

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 24

3.2. Benefits

The preferred scenario promises benefits in Hudson Line on-time performance, signal system performance (capacity), operating reliability and operating efficiency.

3.2.1. On-Time Performance

The simulation results for the preferred scenario show comparable or superior on-time performance for all four railroads when compared with earlier scenarios (see table below).

Table 9: Summary of Simulated On-Time Performance Percent of Trains On-Time Simulation Scenario Metro-North Amtrak CSX/CP 2002 Non-Randomized 96% 94% 97% 2002 Randomized 94% 93% 93% 2022 Baseline Non-Randomized 76% 80% 90% 2022 Scenario 1 Randomized 82% 98% 93% 2022 Scenario 2 Randomized 93% 100% 91% 2022 (Preferred) Scenario 3 Randomized 95% 100% 94%

The Metro-North OTP percentage of 95% (based on a 5:59 threshold at final passenger station) is one percentage point higher than the baseline statistic (94% for the 2002 randomized Simulation). The Metro-North statistics includes both revenue and non-revenue trains. Amtrak results show excellent OTP with 100 percent on-time arrivals based on a 9:59 threshold. Despite the addition of four Hudson Corridor road freights in Scenario 3, freight railroad OTP actually improved from 91 percent to 94 percent.

The improvement in freight OTP is due principally to the rescheduling effort by CSX and CP that provides better sequencing of trains on the Oak Point Link, between CP 8 and Harlem River Yard. The CSX decision to reschedule the Track 4 University Heights industry servicing for work by one northbound road freight in lieu of an earlier northbound road freight that encroached on evening peak shoulder passenger train operation also contributed to the improvement. Better dispatching of southbound CP freight trains between Schenectady and Albany, as a result of evening and late-night Amtrak trains using a single main in both directions, also benefited the OTP statistic.

The station-specific Lateness Reports for the 2022 Scenario 3 Randomized Simulation reveal the differences in OTP between Metro-North territory and Amtrak territory. While the average lateness for all trains is negative (indicating that the average train arrives early) at Amtrak stations Penn Station and Albany-Rensselaer, there is some actual average lateness for all trains at Croton-Harmon and Poughkeepsie. The average northbound train with a scheduled stop at Croton-Harmon arrives just under a minute late, a significant improvement from the Scenario 1 result of more than 5 minutes late. The average northbound Scenario 3 train with a scheduled stop at Poughkeepsie arrives just a few seconds late, a significant improvement from the Scenario 1 average of about 2½ minutes late. The average southbound MNR arrival at GCT arrives a few seconds ahead of schedule. For Amtrak trains, the number of trains in Scenario 3 that arrived significantly ahead of schedule declined versus Scenario 1. For example, the 25 trains at Penn Station southbound arrived an average of 4 minutes early, compared with more than 7 minutes early in Scenario 1. This is a positive outcome of the simulation, indicating better overall schedule coordination between Amtrak and Metro-North.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 25

3.2.2. Train-Minutes of Delay

Table 10 summarizes the train-minutes of signal delay by railroad for the baseline and build scenarios. This statistic captures minutes slowed or stopped due to an inability to proceed under best signal aspect conditions. The preferred scenario improves upon the 2022 baseline for all operators.

Table 10: Delay Summary 2002 Baseline and 2022 No Build Non-Randomized and 2002 Baseline, 2022 Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 Randomization Simulations

Average

Average Total Delay Total Trains Signal Delay/Distance (HH:MM:SS) Operator (min/100 mi) Delayed

(Yes/No) Delayed Operated* All Trains Trains Running Stopped Total Operating Variability Only Amtrak (2002 Base No Random) No 31 36 (1) 00:07:16 00:08:27 3.92 2.79 6.71 CSX All (2002 Base No Random) No 10 47 00:02:05 00:10:00 3.13 8.82 11.95 CSX Hudson Only (2002 Base No No 8 9 00:09:46 0010:59 3.13 7.38 10.51 Random) CP (2002 Base No Random) No 1 1 02:49:25 02:49:25 11.03 46.43 57.46 MNR (2002 Base No Random) No 107 172 00:03:59 00:06:25 11.62 4.04 15.66 Total (2002 Base No Random All) No 149 256 0:04:45 0:08:10 7.65 5.28 12.93 Amtrak (2002 Base Random) Yes 28 36 (1) 00:07:26 00:09:34 5.13 1.99 7.12 CSX All (2002 Base Random) Yes 9 47 00:02:05 00:11:07 3.87 7.76 11.63 CSX Hudson Only (2002 Base Yes 7 9 00:09:35 00:12:19 3.61 6.7 10.31 Random) CP (2002 Base Random) Yes 1 1 00:15:57 00:15:57 2.39 3.02 5.41 MNR (2002 Base Random) Yes 107 172 00:05:24 00:08:41 12.49 7.32 19.81 Total (2002 Base Random All) Yes 145 256 00:05:08 00:09:04 8.53 5.14 13.67 Amtrak (2022 No Build) No 52 58 (2) 00:14:43 00:16:24 7.24 5.97 13.21 CSX All (2022 No Build) No 22 55 (3) 00:19:19 00:47:25 2.79 15.04 17.83 CSX Hudson Only (2022 No Build) No 14 17 (3) 01:03:16 01:12:19 10.31 30.13 40.44 CP (2022 No Build) No 6 6 00:55:26 00:55:26 9.98 15.81 25.79 MNR (2022 No Build) No 140 198 (4) 00:08:05 00:11:26 15.16 5.10 20.26 Total (2022 No Build All) No 220 317 00:12:06 00:17:22 11.49 7.16 18.65 Amtrak (2022 Scen. 1) Yes 50 58 (2) 00:11:55 00:13:21 7.48 2.10 9.58 CSX All (2022 Scen. 1) Yes 18 55 (3) 00:16:00 00:48:52 4.63 30.80 35.43 CSX Hudson Only (2022 Scen. 1) Yes 14 17 (3) 00:49:48 01:00:28 4.5 33.35 37.85 CP (2022 Scen. 1) Yes 6 6 01:08:01 01:08:01 6.46 22.00 28.46 MNR (2022 Scen. 1) Yes 164 198 (4) 00:09:15 00:11:10 15.73 9.46 25.19 Total (2022 Scen. 1 All) Yes 238 317 00:11:51 00:15:41 10.31 10.76 21.07 Amtrak (2022 Scen. 2) Yes 49 58 (5) 00:12:12 00:13:57 7.64 1.47 9.11 CSX All (2022 Scen. 2) Yes 21 55 (3) 00:18:38 00:48:49 10.92 34.80 45.72 CSX Hudson Only (2022 Scen. 2) Yes 15 17 (3) 00:58:57 01:06:48 12.01 39.93 51.94 CP (2022 Scen. 2) Yes 6 6 01:13:53 01:13:53 7.48 39.73 47.21 MNR (2022 Scen. 2) Yes 163 201 (6) 00:04:51 00:06:00 9.33 1.79 11.12 Total (2022 Scen. 2 All) Yes 239 320 00:09:50 00:13:05 8.77 7.30 16.07 Amtrak (2022 Preferred Scenario) Yes 50 58 (5) 00:12:32 00:14:03 7.88 1.49 9.37 CSX All (2022 Preferred Scenario) Yes 27 60 (3) 00:18:59 00:42:10 10.80 28.34 39.14 CSX Hudson Only (2022 Preferred Yes 20 22 (3) 00:50:36 00:55:40 11.59 31.29 42.88 Scenario) CP (2022 Preferred Scenario) Yes 6 6 00:59:50 00:59:50 13.89 24.59 38.48 MNR (2022 Preferred Scenario) Yes 166 201 (6) 00:05:03 00:06:07 10.03 1.54 11.57 Total (2022 Preferred Scenario) Yes 249 325 00:09:57 00:12:55 9.52 6.46 15.98

* The number of trains operated may vary from the earlier tables. The reasons are explained in the notes on the next page.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 26

Table 10: Delay Summary 2002 Baseline and 2022 No Build Non-Randomized and 2002 Baseline, 2022 Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 Randomization Simulations Note 1: Amtrak operated 26 trains in 2002, per the Friday timetable, between New York and Albany-Rensselaer. Other trains represent non-revenue movements between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, as well as Amtrak Lake Shore switching and Boston section moves.

Note 2: Amtrak scheduled 49 trains in the 2022 “No Build” Future Baseline and in 2022 Scenario 1 between New York and Albany-Rensselaer. Other trains represent non-revenue movements between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, as well as Amtrak Lake Shore switching and Boston section moves.

Note 3: CSX intended to operate 60 total trains and 22 Hudson Line trains per weekday in all 2022 simulation scenarios. However, existing CSX trains Q430, Q431, K276 (both River Line and Hudson Line sections) and K277 were inadvertently omitted from the 2022 “No Build” Future Baseline, from 2022 Scenario 1 and from 2022 Scenario 2. Because 2022 Scenario 3 (with higher CSX train volume) has more favorable statistics than do Scenarios 1 and 2, the omission of five freight trains does not affect the selection of Scenario 3 as the preferred alternative.

Note 4: The Metro-North operating plan for the 2022 “No Build” Future Baseline and for 2022 Scenario 1 has 194 weekday trains. The additional trains referenced are “Day 2” early morning trains needed to achieve about 30 hours of actual simulation time.

Note 5: Amtrak scheduled 50 trains in the 2022 Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 operating plans between New York and Albany-Rensselaer. Other trains represent non-revenue movements between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, as well as Amtrak Lake Shore switching and Boston section moves.

Note 6: The Metro-North operating plan for the 2022 Scenarios 2 and 3 has 196 weekday trains. The additional trains referenced are “Day 2” early morning trains needed to achieve about 30 hours of actual simulation time.

Note 7: CSX All includes CSX Selkirk-Boston and Selkirk-River Line movements between Selkirk SK and SK/SM in addition to Hudson Line freight service

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 27

3.3. Capital Cost Estimates

Order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates were developed for the proposed improvements based on the project descriptions, schematic diagrams, and industry experience for similar work. Field review and conceptual engineering are recommended next steps. The total cost for all improvements (excluding the Albany-Rensselaer projects) is $395 million (current-year dollars). Individual project costs are shown in the table below. The fact sheets in Section 4 provide additional information.

Table 11: Capital Cost Estimates for the Preferred Scenario

Cost Without Cost of High- High-Capacity Capacity Improvement Name Signals Signals Total Cost Double Track Amtrak Connection at Spuyten Duyvil $62,538,200 $62,538,200 Tarrytown Pocket Track and New CP 24 47,616,700 47,616,700 New High-Capacity Signal System (CP 34-53, CP 58-61, CP 63-72) - $76,791,600 76,791,600 CP 53 to CP 63 Triple Track 70,313,840 14,026,320 84,340,160 CP 72 and CP 75 Triple Track 6,591,570 3,005,640 9,597,210 New MNR Poughkeepsie Yard and Mainline Improvements 39,763,160 6,011,280 45,774,440 New CP 82 8,719,900 8,719,900 New CP 99 9,064,900 9,064,900 Hudson Station Revised Configuration 6,550,700 6,550,700 Stuyvesant Third Track and Interlocking Improvement 34,832,700 34,832,700 New CP 136 8,719,900 8,719,900 Albany-Rensselaer Station - Fourth Platform and Track * Albany-Rensselaer Station - Extend Station Platforms * Albany-Rensselaer Station - Expanded Yard Capacity * Albany-Rensselaer Station - Interlocking of Wye * Albany-Rensselaer Station - Interlocking of Freight Bypass * TOTAL ALL PROJECTS $294,711,570 $99,834,840 $394,546,410 *Cost estimates for the Albany-Rensselaer Phase 4 station improvements were not included in the scope of the project.

3.4. Environmental Considerations

Staff from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute provided a report on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed improvements. Each proposed site was assessed for potential environmental impacts, using the following materials:

· Head-end video footage of the Hudson Line; · Still photos at certain locations from field investigations; · Digital orthoimagery provided by the New York State Geographic Information System (GIS) Clearinghouse; · Sensitive areas in New York State as indicated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); · Open water disposal, toxic release, air emission, resource conservation and recovery act and superfund facilities;

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 28

· Access to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) GIS database; and · National Register of Historic Places.

The project fact sheets (Section 4) include discussion of the following areas of importance:

· Ecological Impacts (including wetlands and biological issues); · Social and Economic Impacts (including noise, vibration and air quality); and · Historical and Cultural Impacts.

Since funding sources have not been identified for the projects, both federal and state environmental requirements were considered.

Based on this level of analysis, it is not currently expected that any of the proposed projects are likely to have major environmental impacts. Further investigation at a more detailed level as specific projects progress may confirm or modify this opinion.

3.5. Potential Phasing of Proposed Projects

Following the acceptance of Scenario 3 as the Preferred Alternative, the Joint Users developed the following potential phasing for the component projects:

Near Term (2005-2009) Projects: High-Capacity Signal System CP 34 – CP 75 Install Hudson Station Platform Track 2/Remove CP 115 Poughkeepsie Yard and Third Track Upgrade New CP 82

Mid-Term (2010-2014) Projects: Double Track Empire Connection at CP 12/CP 13 High Speed Crossover Tarrytown Pocket Track and New CP 24 New CP 99 New CP 136

Long Term Projects Install Third Track CP 53 to CP 63 Stuyvesant Third Track and Interlocking Improvements

This phasing is preliminary and dependent on the availability of funding, which has yet to be determined.

3.6. Next Steps

A funding plan for the proposed projects within the next twenty years will be determined by the Joint Users.1 Participation of the freight carriers in funding proje cts is contingent upon the availability of capital and the project benefit (rate of return) to the freight carriers. Progression of projects may require completion of parallel CANAC simulations to confirm incremental benefits

1 The Joint Users also indicated an interest in an additional project: elimination of the pole line and aerial cable for the 1970’s-era Hudson Line signal system between Poughkeepsie and Albany-Rensselaer. CSX estimated the replacement cost to be approximately $15 million. Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 29

4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FACT SHEETS

This section includes a fact sheet for each project in the preferred scenario. The projects are in northbound geographical order, from Spuyten Duyvil to Albany-Rensselaer Station.

NAME: Double Track Amtrak Connection

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 1

LOCATION: Spuyten Duyvil

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "A" EMPIRE JERVIS INWOOD MODIFIED

12 13 14 15 16 2 PENN 1 STATION NEW YORK RIVERDALE LUDLOW YONKERS GLENWOOD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS HARLEM-125TH STREET MORRIS HEIGHTS BN MARBLE HILL OAK Yard SPUYTEN POINT DUYVIL LINK CP 12 CP 13 A16 CP 4 CP 5 CP 6 CP 8 CP 10 CP 11 MODIFIED NEW A15 SS SS SS DOMINO SUGAR A7 4 4 4 GRAND 2 CENTRAL 1

SS SS CP 7 M126 HARLEM LINE 3,864 FEET OMITTED-- A10 SS

MARBLE HILL 0 7 A13 . CUT OFF IN 1900 2 2 # 3 #

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Single-track choke point causing delays to trains

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Install double track with associated signal and civil improvements

Ø It is also assumed that third rail will be installed on Track 1 between CP 12 and 1,000 feet north of CP13.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Eliminate conflicts between opposing Amtrak trains at and between CP Inwood and CP 12.

Ø Allow Amtrak trains entering and exiting the Hudson Line at CP 13 via the #32.7 crossovers to more quickly traverse the diverging route, which will decrease conflict delays with Metro- North Railroad trains.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 30

Ø Supports freight train pocket for short (“local”) freight trains on Track 1 between CP 12 and CP13, improving operational flexibility.

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Amtrak is the only direct Travel Time Medium beneficiary.

Amtrak and Metro-North, with Capacity Medium some freight benefit.

Amtrak and Metro-North, with Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium some freight benefit.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

This project is located in the southern portion of Bronx County and the northern portion of New York County. Separating the two counties is a swing bridge crossing the Harlem River. The swing bridge is wide enough for two tracks but presently only has one track. The trackage in New York County has the Hudson River to the west and Inwood Hill Park, a New York City Department of Parks and Recreation site, to the east. A field visit was conducted to this site to determine possible environmental impacts. There is ample room for two tracks in the right-of-way (ROW) without the need to impact Inwood Hill Park. On the south side of the bridge there is ample land to make these improvements without significant environmental impacts. It will be necessary to ensure that the neighboring park will not be affected by any of these improvements.

The portion of this project that is located in Bronx County is located where Amtrak’s Empire Connection and MNR’s Hudson Line diverge. Adjacent to this property to the west is the Hudson River; a steep sloped wooded area is to the east. Two tracks can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. The geometric modification to CP 12 and the creation of a new CP 13 should not pose any significant environmental impacts. Based on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) database there are no freshwater wetlands in the vicinity of this project, but this should be verified in the field before further steps are taken. It should also be noted that any wetlands between New York City and Troy along the Hudson River are NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetlands. Also based on the EPA GIS database, there are no open water disposal, toxic release, air emission, resource conservation and recovery act or superfund facilities directly adjacent to this location.

There does not appear to be any significant likelihood that social or economic impacts will arise in the surrounding environment. On the northern side of the project, some homes are located on a steep embankment. No change in noise levels is expected once the project is completed. In fact, this project has the potential to reduce exhaust and noise emissions since conflicting trains will not be forced to idle while waiting for the track to clear.

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 31

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø Structural rehabilitation of the movable bridge was not assumed; construction of a new bridge deck to carry the second track was assumed.

Ø No apparent civil engineering constraints to the double tracking were found.

Ø Relocation of the CP 12 control house, switch house and sheds would be required.

Ø Relocation of Substation A12 in advance of construction would be required, and location of a suitable site will be challenging due to existing development on the constrained site.

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $14,294,500

Signaling 13,022,600 Double Track Amtrak Connection at Spuyten Duyvil Civil/Structure 14,375,000 50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 20,846,100

TOTAL $62,538,200

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 32

NAME: Tarrytown Pocket Track and New CP 24

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 2

LOCATION: Tarrytown

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Y E L S IRVINGTON TARRYTOWN PHILIPSE MANOR SCARBOROUGH OSSINING D R A

CP 24 CP 25 CP 26 NEW MODIFIED REMOVED

4 2

1 3

SS S SS S A22 SS A29 A31 A26 5 0 1 2 # #

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Blocking of mainline track by trains that are turning to begin a new trip in the reverse direction.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Install a new Tarrytown Pocket Track and new CP 24.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Enable trains “turning” at existing CP 25 to do so without having to “change ends” while on and blocking a mainline track. This will enhance capacity and reliability.

Ø It is assumed that third rail will be installed on the new Tail Track, and on Track 1 between 1,000 feet south of new CP 24 and 1,000 feet north of new CP 25.

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time None None

Capacity High Metro-North and Amtrak

Reliability & Schedule Recovery High Metro-North and Amtrak

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 33

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

Environmental impacts associated with this improvement should be minimal. All of the proposed track work is expected to take place between tracks 3 and 4. This being the case, the majority of the work will take place in the existing right-of-way. The infrastructure necessary for the home signals will need to be examined carefully, so that the signals are not placed in any environmentally sensitive areas.

In the proximity of the new CP 24 and existing CP 25 there are several underground culverts for streams: one at milepost 24.1 and another at milepost 24.5. Based on the EPA GIS database there are no open water disposal, toxic release, air emission, resource conservation and recovery act or superfund facilities directly adjacent to this location.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment. In the past, there have been noise complaints from residents located just south of the station. It will be necessary to ensure that, if the project proceeds, there will be minimal noise impacts to the community.

There was no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø Careful staging will be required to minimize impacts to operations during construction.

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $18,929,000

Signaling 12,815,500

Tarrytown Pocket Track and New CP 24 Civil/Structure 0

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 15,872,200

TOTAL $47,616,700

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 34

NAME: Triple Track from CP 53 to 63

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 7

LOCATION: Between Cold Spring (MP 52) and New Hamburg (MP 65)

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

COLD SPRING BREAKNECK RIDGE BEACON NEW HAMBURG

CP 53 CP 58 CP 61 CP 63 CP 64 MODIFIED (Former Movable Bridge)

MODIFIED REMOVED NEWT E E R T S

K N A B #32.7

AMERICAN LUMBER BEACON LINE 7

L NABISCO RICE BROTHERS . L 5 5 2 7 . 5 A 3 . 1 . 2 # 2 # 3 6

# X G

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Train congestion and train delays.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Modify CP 53 and CP 58.

Ø Triple-track CP 53 to CP 58.

Ø Triple-track CP 61 to CP 63.

Ø This set of improvements includes additional #32.7 turnouts at CP 53 and CP 58 and a new CP 63 (replacing CP 61).

Ø A tail track is provided at CP 63 to enables trains “turning” at Beacon to do so without having to change ends while occupying and blocking a mainline track.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays.

Ø The existing controlled siding will be upgraded and replaced by the new third track.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 35

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Travel Time Low and freight railroads.

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Capacity High and freight railroads.

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Reliability & Schedule Recovery High and freight railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

CP 53 is on a fill area that is surrounded by the Hudson River on the west and Cold Spring Bay to the east. The fill section is wide enough for three tracks if the center lines are changed. If the current track placements are not changed, then it will be necessary to widen the fill section. Between Breakneck Tunnel and the end of the new triple track section at MP 63, the most environmentally sensitive area is between mileposts 57 and 58. At this location there are several bridges over the Fishkill Creek. There is still a bridge that was once in use but the track was removed. This suggests that permitting will be necessary but the existing right-of-way can be used. It is anticipated that permitting would be required if there were in-water work or blocking of the passageway under the bridge.

Between CP 58 (MP 58.5) and CP 61 (MP 61.5) there is a controlled siding. This siding is to be eliminated and upgraded to the triple track. The NYSDEC and the EPA databases did not show any significant issues for this stretch of track, therefore, the head-end video footage was used to verify these assumptions. It will be necessary to verify in the field the exact location of any freshwater or tidal wetlands.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment. There are several state parks within this ten-mile project area, including Hudson Highland State Park. The third track is not anticipated to negatively affect any of the park operations.

No cultural resources or historic structures were identified within the project area. Although the Breakneck Tunnel is not on the National Historic Register, it may be eligible for historic status. Realigning the tracks through the tunnel portals may require some modification to the tunnel (see construction issues).

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø Preliminary review indicates that clearance would likely be adequate for double tracking the northbound/east tube of Breakneck Tunnel. Some modification to the tunnel (lowering the track profile, reshaping the tunnel walls) to provide additional clearance is included in the capital cost estimate. A detailed investigation of Breakneck Tunnel should be undertaken to confirm clearance for an additional track. Extensive engineering would be required to confirm feasibility and/or cost of tunnel expansion, should additional clearance be required.

Ø Outside of the tunnel, the third track would use the existing gravel access roadway along the northbound/east track. It is assumed that this access roadway would not need to be

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 36

replaced. If replacement of the access roadway were needed, the cost and complexity would significantly increase for property acquisition and additional rock blasting.

Ø The existing gravel roadway crosses Fishkill Creek on bridge structures. It is assumed that these bridges were originally designed to carry railroad track, and that no new structures are required for that purpose. Structural analysis is required to confirm that the bridges can support rail traffic or determine if rehabilitated/new structures would be required.

CAPITAL COST:

Cost Without Cost of

High-Capacity High-Capacity

Signal Upgrade Signal Upgrade to Existing to Existing Tracks Tracks Total Cost

Trackwork $32,067,000 $ 0 $32,067,000 CP 53 to CP 63 Triple Track Signaling 12,840,790 9,350,880 22,191,670

Civil/Structure 1,968,100 0 1,968,100

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 23,437,950 4,675,440 28,113,390

TOTAL $70,313,840 $14,026,320 $84,340,160

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 37

NAME: Triple Track from CP 72 to 75

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement #10

LOCATION: Poughkeepsie

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 )

POUGHKEEPSIE X S C (

T S O P

N I O S I V I D

6 7 . 5 CP 72 CP 73 7 ) E E R

T CP 75

O MODIFIED NEW H A N T V A I S R C N P I ( E A T T B A P U R L A I P C C

2 2

1 1

3 3

IBM SIDING 0 0 7 5 . 0 1 8 . . 2 1 # 5 7 3 7

X # W X

G E D G N R A Y

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Train congestion and train delays.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø The existing controlled siding will be upgraded and replaced by the new third track.

Ø This set of improvements includes a new “parallel” #32.7 crossover at CP 72 and a new “ladder” at a new CP 73. CP 73 is to provide interlocked access to a new and consolidated Metro-North Railroad yard located on the east side of the railroad.

Ø As per client direction, the capital cost estimate does not include the new yard or CP 73 to access the yard, which are discussed as Improvement #11.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays.

Ø Reduce Poughkeepsie Station congestion by relocating most train turns to the yard.

Ø Support use of Poughkeepsie Station Track 3 for most Metro-North train originations and terminations, allowing through Amtrak and freight movements on Tracks 1 and 2.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 38

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Travel Time Medium and freight railroads.

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Capacity Medium and freight railroads.

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium and freight railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

This project is expected to have minimal environmental impacts. At the location of CP 72, there is an underground culvert, but the reconfiguration should be able to take place without disrupting anything. The existing controlled siding will become the new third track. Therefore, there should be minimal impacts associated with this upgrade. The new CP 73 also can be constructed entirely within the right-of-way.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment.

There was no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area. The adjacent Poughkeepsie Station building, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, would not be affected.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø Third track will replace the existing gravel roadway. It is assumed that the access roadway would not need to be replaced. Property acquisition may be required to recreate the access roadway along the east side of the right-of-way.

Ø There are no significant construction issues.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 39

CAPITAL COST:

Cost Without Cost of

High-Capacity High-Capacity Signal Upgrade Signal Upgrade to Existing to Existing Tracks Tracks Total Cost

Trackwork $3,841,000 $ 0 $3,841,000

Signaling 553,380 2,003,760 2,557,140

CP 72 and CP 75 Triple Track Civil/Structure 0 0 0

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 2,197,190 1,001,880 3,199,070

TOTAL $6,591,570 $3,005,640 $9,597,210

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 40

NAME: New Metro-North Poughkeepsie Yard

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 5

LOCATION: Poughkeepsie Yard

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 )

POUGHKEEPSIE X S C (

T S O P

N I O S I V I D

6 7 . 5 CP 72 CP 73 7 ) E E R

T CP 75

O MODIFIED NEW H A N T V A I S R C N P I ( E A T T B A P U R L A I P C C

2 2

1 1

3 3

IBM SIDING 0 0 7 5 . 0 1 8 . . 2 1 # 5 7 3 7

X # W X

G E D G N R A Y

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Current Metro-North train storage at Poughkeepsie is on both west and east sides of the Corridor, resulting in maintenance inefficiencies.

Ø All yard access is via non-interlocked, hand-thrown switches, causing mainline congestion as trains are moved between Poughkeepsie Yard and storage locations. This, in turn, necessitates train turning in the station, increasing probability of conflicts with Amtrak and freight trains.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide Metro-North with a single yard having interlocked access and capable of storing approximately 15 trainsets.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Consolidated maintenance of all Metro-North Poughkeepsie service at one location.

Ø Support for most Metro-North trains arriving and departing from Track 3 at Poughkeepsie Station, freeing up Tracks 1 and 2 for Amtrak and freight movements.

Ø Improved operating speeds by eliminating mainline electric lock/hand throw switch operation.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 41

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Travel Time Low freight railroads.

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Capacity Medium freight railroads.

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium freight railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

There is currently a yard at this location. Based on field investigations and viewing the NYSDEC and EPA databases there were no significant ecological impacts, such as wetlands, wildlife or hazardous sites. Although the databases do not show any wetlands, it will be necessary to verify this in the field. At milepost 73.6 the railroad crosses a small creek, and at mileposts 74.1 and 74.3 there are culvert crossings. These structures do not interfere with the operations of the yard. To the east of the proposed yard is a waste water treatment facility that is contained on its own property. When the facility is constructed it will be necessary to ensure adequate drainage is present.

The areas around this yard are primarily industrial, so social impacts to the environment will be limited. Since the yard will have the capacity to store 15 trainsets there may be a significant amount of noise generated from the site during peak periods. A dormitory for Marist College is located nearby. Therefore, it will be necessary to monitor noise levels. There is also a possibility of additional ground vibration.

There was no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area. However, it should be noted that just south of the project limits is the Poughkeepsie Station, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Also on the Register is the overhead Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge. Neither of these structures would be affected by the proposed project.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø No significant issues

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 42

CAPITAL COST:

Cost Without Cost of

High-Capacity High-Capacity

Signal Upgrade Signal Upgrade to Existing to Existing Tracks Tracks Total Cost

Trackwork $20,781,070 - $20,781,070

Signaling 3,989,700 $4,007,520 7,997,220 New MNR Poughkeepsie Yard Civil/Structure 1,738,000 - 1,738,000 and Mainline Improvements 50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 13,254,390 2,003,760 15,258,150

TOTAL $39,763,160 $6,011,280 $45,774,440

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 43

NAME: New High-Capacity Signal System

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 11

LOCATION: Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie.

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Insufficient signal capacity for high-volume passenger train and higher-speed freight train operations.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Install new high-capacity five-aspect signal system with additional CS80 cab signal aspect that requires Metro-North locomotive and cab control car rolling stock retrofit.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide for close-headway high-capacity passenger-train operations while maintaining the ability to operate freight trains at 50 MPH Maximum Authorized Speed.

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Benefits to Metro-North, Amtrak, Travel Time Low and freight railroads.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Capacity Very High railroads.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

The overall impacts of this project are expected to be minimal, and within existing right-of-way, but to accurately determine the environmental impacts of this project, the exact location of any fixed structures will need to be determined and evaluated during design.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø No significant issues.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 44

CAPITAL COST:

CP 53-63 CP 72-75 CP 34-53 vicinity of CP 58-61 Poughkeepsie CP 63-72 Yard Total Cost

Trackwork $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

Signaling 51,194,400 15,362,160 66,556,560 New High-Capacity Signal System from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie Civil/Structure 0 0 0

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 25,597,200 7,681,080 33,278,280

TOTAL $76,791,600 $23,043,240 $99,834,840

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 45

NAME: New Control Point 82

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 12

LOCATION: Vicinity Hyde Park

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

HYDE PARK STAATSBURG

CP 82 NEW

STAATSBURG SIDING 7 . 2 3 #

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Train congestion and train delays, including inability to cross over Amtrak train to run “left- handed” around freight trains without significant travel time penalty.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Optimize capacity of the double -track section in this territory by installing new #32.7 crossovers.

Ø This configuration will also minimize delays during contingent track-outage conditions.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 46

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Travel Time Medium railroads.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Capacity Medium railroads.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment.

There was no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø No significant issues.

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $3,404,000

Signaling 2,409,300

New CP 82 Civi l/Structure 0

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 2,906,600

TOTAL $8,719,900

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 47

NAME: New Control Point 99

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 13

LOCATION: Near Tivoli (MP 99)

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

TIVOLI GERMANTOWN

G CP 99 CP 103 N I S

S NEW O R C

E T A I V R P

TIVOLI SIDING 7 . 0 0 2 3 7 6 . . 8 3 . 0 2 8 # 0 0 9 1 1

X X X G G G

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Train congestion and train delays, including inability to cross over Amtrak train to run “left- handed” around freight trains without significant travel time penalty.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Optimize capacity of the double -track section in this territory by installing new #32.7 crossovers.

Ø This configuration will also minimize delays during contingent track-outage conditions.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 48

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time Medium Benefits to Amtrak only.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Capacity Medium railroads.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

Installing a new control point at this location should not have any significant environmental impacts. With the exception of the signal system, the project can be done entirely between the two existing tracks. The exact location where the signal structures are located will need to be determined, but based on the NYSDEC and EPA data as well as the head end video footage, there are no significant ecological issues directly at the site. There is, however, a large area of class 1 DEC freshwater wetlands just south of the site. Figure 9 provides a sense of the proximity of the wetlands: the red dot is approximately where this control point is to be located; the pink line represents the Hudson Line; and the blue diagonal lines represent DEC freshwater wetlands. Fieldwork will be necessary to identify exactly where the wetlands are located relative to project elements.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment. In the past, there have been concerns related to the noise generated from the railroad. It is not expected that a high-speed interlocking would produce additional noise.

There was no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø No significant issues.

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $3,634,000

Signaling 2,409,300

New CP 99 Civil/Structure 0

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 3,021,600

TOTAL $9,064,900

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 49

NAME: Hudson Station Revised Configuration

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 14

LOCATION: Hudson

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

HUDSON STOCKPORT NEWTON HOOK

CP 114 CP 115 REMOVED D A O

M R

R Y

O R

W F R E AT E N L F P RIVER TRACK 2 1

CLAVERACK I.T. 5 9 . 1 2 1

X G

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Insufficient passenger access to Track 2.

Ø Single train operation between CP 114 and CP 115 for trains stopping at the station.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Install a southbound platform on the west side of the track with appropriate pedestrian connection to the east side of the station.

Ø The CP 115 holding signals will be converted to non-controlled automatic signals.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Enhance safety and minimize station dwell times by eliminating the need for passengers to cross a mainline track when boarding or alighting trains on Track 2.

Ø Eliminate train conflict delays by allowing simultaneous train operations to be in the station at the same time.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 50

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time Medium Benefits to Amtrak only.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Capacity Medium railroads.

Benefits to Amtrak and freight Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium railroads.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

In order to install the proposed station platforms it will be necessary to construct a platform on the eastern side of the station property. If a standard platform is constructed at this location it will be several feet from the property boundary. The land that is located between track 2 and the property boundary is slightly lower than that of the track and is overgrown with brush. The NYSDEC and EPA databases indicate that there are no restrictions on this piece of land. When a platform is constructed at this location it will be necessary to implement similar drainage patterns that presently exist. Field investigations at this location also support the conclusions from the databases and that it is feasible to reconfigure Hudson Station.

The design of the project should be analyzed prior to its construction to ensure that the visual effects no not create any negative social impacts. Following the completion of this project, station dwell times will be reduced, therefore, reducing the exhaust and noise emissions.

Apart from the Hudson Station building itself, which may be eligible for historic status, there was no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø Hudson Station improvements require the construction of two 500-foot long side platforms located along existing Tracks 1 and Track 2. The platforms would be connected to the station building and parking area by a pedestrian overpass to eliminate pedestrian crossings of active tracks and improve passenger loading times significantly. Two elevators linking the overpass to the platforms would be provided for ADA accessibility.

Ø The current station low-level platforms are along a 4-degree curve. Placement of new high- level platforms in this area would result in an unacceptable 15” gap between the vehicle and platform edge. As such, high-level platforms would need to be shifted north or south of their current location, the track through the area would require realignment to reduce the curvature, or retractable platform edges would be required. The capital cost estimate assumes mini-high level platforms installed at the current locations.

Ø Alternative approaches to address curvature through the platform would be required for high- level platforms. Locations of the special trackwork leading to existing sidings in the area, the roadway overpass just north of the station at Ferry Street, potential property impacts associated with curve realignment, and the grade crossing just south of the station would need to be considered.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 51

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $ 43,100

Signaling 80,500 Hudson Station Revised Configuration Civil/Structure 4,243,500 (mini-high level platforms) 50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 2,183,600

TOTAL $6,550,700

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 52

NAME: Stuyvesant Third Track and Interlocking Improvements

PROJECT LOCATION: Stuyvesant

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 15

118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 G N I D

STOCKPORT NEWTON HOOK STUYVESANT N A L

K A D O

CSXT HUDSON LINE H C S

CP 123 CP 124 CP 125 NEW REMOVED MODIFIED D A O G R N

D I #20 Y R T R D . A R T N E V O A F P B L

2 2 1 1 CSXT SELKIRK BRANCH (SCHODACK SUBDIVISION) 0 0 5 5 2 1 8 2 9 2 # 6 2 9 . . . . # . 1 2 3 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X G G G G G

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Train congestion and train delays, including inability to “meet” northbound and southbound freight trains at this location while accommodating a through passenger train. Freight train operation is constrained today because northbound freights must cross over to Track 2 at CP 124 and operate “left handed” in order to access the CP 125 connection to the CSX Schodack Subdivision.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Instead of originally envisioned high-speed crossovers, a conceptual design with No. 20 frog angles (45 MPH diverging speed) was developed.

Ø The new third track was placed on the west side of the existing two tracks in Scenario 3, effectively continuing the Schodack Subdivision for two miles to the south. A two-track universal interlocking was provided at CP 123, and a three-track universal interlocking at CP 125. . SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays.

Ø This configuration will also minimize delays during contingent track-outage conditions.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 53

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time Low Benefits to Amtrak only.

Modest benefits to Amtrak and freight railroads with Scenario 3 Capacity Low-Medium operating plan; Medium benefits with additional freight movements, especially CPR.

Modest benefits to Amtrak and freight railroads with Scenario 3 Reliability & Schedule Recovery Low-Medium operating plan; Medium benefits with additional freight movements, especially CPR.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

In the past this section of the corridor had a third track, therefore, the right-of-way should be able to accommodate this improvement without any significant problems. However, several environmental issues will need to be addressed. The property surrounding much of this area is designated as agricultural, however, no operating farms are directly adjacent to this facility. As an overview, Figure 12 shows the current Existing CP 125 alignment along with freshwater wetlands. The pink line is the current alignment and the diagonal blue lines are NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. From the figure it is clear that only a small section of this facility does not pass through wetlands. The majority of this right-of- way, especially south of CP 124, passes through swamp and marsh- like areas.

Just south of the proposed CP 123, there is a grade crossing that CP 124 leads to Nutten Hook. Nutten Hook is part of the Stockport Flats component of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve. This organization has expressed an interest to develop a boat launch facility at this location. As part of their EIS they proposed closing Ferry Road and constructing a “connector” road between the two on the west side of the railroad. This would eliminate one grade crossing just south of the proposed CP 123.

The location where CP 125 is to be modified also has freshwater wetlands. Figure 13 is a photo looking down at milepost 125 from the abandoned Selkirk East Branch. The wooded area directly across from the mile marker is where the extension of the Schodack Subdivision would be. New CP 123

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area. The former Stuyvesant Station is located on the National Register of Historic Places. This structure is located just Figure 12 – CP 123 to CP 125 wetlands north of MP 124, far enough away from the right-of-way that construction of a third track would have minimal impacts on the former railroad station.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 54

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø Triple track will require widening causeways into wetlands and waterways. Embankment to existing roadway will have to be cut back and replaced with a retaining wall. Relocation of power lines is also necessary.

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $10,861,500

Signaling 9,203,000 Stuyvesant Third Track and Civil/Structure 3,157,300 Interlocking Improvements 50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 11,610,900

TOTAL $34,832,700

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 55

NAME: New Control Point 136

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 16

LOCATION: Albany-Rensselaer

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

CASTLETON ON HUDSON

CP 136

D NEW D N D R

A . A L S I O E D D D D D R N S R R R I R R T T R A . . . . . R T T T A T T A V V V V V T O P P P M P P S P

2 2 1 1

FT. ORANGE PAPER CO. 7 . 5 5 9 0 2 2 0 8 2 0 8 0 2 3 9 2 9 ...... S 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 7 9 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 I # 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M

X X X X X X T X X T G G G G G G I G G

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Train congestion and train delays, including inability to pocket a northbound freight train awaiting an operating slot through the Albany-Rensselaer complex.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø A proposed high-speed interlocking initially located at CP 140 in Scenario 2 was moved further south to CP 136, offering more uniform spacing between interlockings. This provides better support for track outages due to maintenance and inspection activities.

Ø A signal block layout and control line design for new CP 136 and its approaches consistent with the current NORAC wayside/cab train control system was developed.

Ø The size of the CP 140 crossovers will be #32.7, supporting 80 MPH diverging movements.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Provide enhanced meet/pass capabilities to minimize future train congestion and delays by providing a freight-train “pocket”.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 56

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time Low Benefits to Amtrak only.

Benefits to Amtrak and CPR only; capacity benefit would be Capacity Low greater if CPR scheduled additional midday freight movements.

Benefits to Amtrak and CPR Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium only.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

of the railroad in this territory is adjacent to NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. Further investigation of the head end video confirmed that swampy areas are present. It is not expected that the project would encroach onto the wetlands, but field investigations will be necessary.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment.

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø No significant issues.

CAPITAL COST:

Trackwork $3,404,000

Signaling 2,409,300

New CP 136 Civil/Structure 0

50% Soft Costs, Contingencies & Force Account 2,906,600

TOTAL $8,719,900

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 57

NAME: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Fourth Platform and Track

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 19

LOCATION: Albany-Rensselaer

141 142 143 144

ALBANY-RENSSELAER CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6

FREIGHT BYPASS RENSSELAER SHOP FREIGHT SIDING

To New York 1

Pocket Track

To Springfield, MA POST ROAD BR.

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Lack of station capacity and flexibility due to lack of cab signaling (15 MPH slow speed operation) and only three station platforms.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø CDTA Phase 4 improvements support “straight through” 30 MPH routes north and south of the station.

Ø Existing platform on the east side of the Corridor is enhanced from a side platform to an island platform, thereby increasing the number of platform tracks to 4.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Eliminate “hold out” delays due to lack of station platform capacity, especially when the “Lake Shore Limited” trains (Trains 48, 49, 448 and 449) are delayed and operating in the same timeframe as another Empire Corridor train.

Ø Support movement of freight trains through the station when passenger boarding and alighting is occurring.

Ø Improve travel times by eliminating routine diverging movements and applying a 30 MPH MAS cab signal system through the Albany-Rensselaer terminal area.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 58

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Benefit primarily to Amtrak with Travel Time Low some benefit to CPR.

Capacity Medium Benefits to Amtrak only.

Reliability & Schedule Recovery HIgh Benefits to Amtrak only.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

The environmental impacts of the project should be minimal as long as the project stays within the existing right-of-way. There is plenty of room for platform expansion as well as additional platforms. Based on the NYSDEC and EPA databases there are no wetlands in the vicinity of these projects; this should be verified through field work.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment.

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 59

NAME: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Platform Extensions

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 20

LOCATION: Albany-Rensselaer

141 142 143 144

ALBANY-RENSSELAER CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6

TO FREIGHT BYPASS RENSSELAER MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND YARD FREIGHT SIDING

To New York 1

Pocket Track

To Springfield, MA POST ROAD BR.

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Insufficient platform capacity at Albany-Rensselaer Station to berth long trains.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Extend the station platforms northward.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Accommodate longer trains.

Ø Minimize the station dwell times of longer trains and associated interlocking congestion when longer trains foul interlockings north or south of the station.

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time Low Benefits to Amtrak only.

Capacity Medium Benefits to Amtrak only.

Reliability & Schedule Recovery Medium Benefits to Amtrak only.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Ø See previous Fact Sheet (Albany-Rensselaer Station: Fourth-Platform and Track)

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 60

NAME: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Expanded Yard Capacity

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 21

LOCATION: Albany-Rensselaer

141 142 143 144

ALBANY-RENSSELAER CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6

FREIGHT TO BYPASS RENSSELAER MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND YARD FREIGHT SIDING

To New York 1

Pocket Track

To Springfield, MA POST ROAD BR.

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Insufficient yard capacity

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Expansion of yard capacity at Albany-Rensselaer.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Expand yard capacity to accommodate future storage and maintenance requirements based on substantially higher level of Amtrak Empire Corridor service.

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time None

Capacity Medium Benefits to Amtrak only.

Reliability & Schedule Recovery None

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 61

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

Yard expansion is likely to have few ecological issues. The owner of the land to the west of the existing site is unknown. If the owner is other than Amtrak, it will be necessary to acquire this land. Clearing and grubbing of the acquired parcels will be necessary. Based on the NYSDEC and EPA databases there are no wetlands in the vicinity of these projects, but this should be field- verified. Adequate drainage facilities should also be installed so runoff will not pollute the nearby Hudson River.

The land at the southwestern quadrant of the site is the Rensselaer Junior and Senior High School. It will be necessary to ensure that no additional noise will be generated from this expansion that would disturb the school or the residents of the surrounding community. The exhaust emissions should be monitored so that they do not affect the air quality in the neighborhood.

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historical structures within this project area.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 62

NAME: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Interlocking of Wye

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Improvement # 22

LOCATION: Albany-Rensselaer Station

141 142 143 144

ALBANY-RENSSELAER CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6

FREIGHT TO BYPASS RENSSELAER MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND YARD FREIGHT SIDING

To New York 1

Pocket Track

To Springfield, MA POST ROAD BR.

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Blocking of main line track by turning trains.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Power and interlock the three switches of the Troy Industrial Track Wye to speed up the turning of locomotives and trains, and to minimize the time that a main track is blocked by such switching operations.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø This improvement will enhance capacity and reliability.

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time None

Benefit primarily to Amtrak, with Capacity Medium some benefit to CPR.

Benefit primarily to Amtrak, with Reliability & Schedule Recovery None some benefit to CPR.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 63

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

The environmental impacts associated with this project are expected to be minimal. The switches are currently installed; they will just be upgraded as deemed necessary. Based on the NYSDEC and EPA databases there are no wetlands in the vicinity of these projects but this should be verified in the field prior to any progressive steps.

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment.

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historic structures within this project area.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 64

NAME: Albany-Rensselaer Station: Interlocking of Freight Bypass

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: # 23

LOCATION: Albany-Rensselaer Station

141 142 143 144

ALBANY-RENSSELAER CP 141 CP 143 CP LAB (Holding Signals Only) CP 142 CP 144 CP 145 141.1 142.0 142.4 143.6

TO FREIGHT BYPASS RENSSELAER MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND YARD FREIGHT SIDING

To New York 1

Pocket Track

To Springfield, MA POST ROAD BR.

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:

Ø Freight train congestion resulting from the need for freight crews to stop and throw (and then restore) hand-thrown switches for trains with “high and wide” loads.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø Power and interlock the two switches of the Freight Bypass Track to speed up movements through this track, and to minimize the time that the main tracks are blocked by such train movements.

Ø This improvement is only recommended for inclusion if there are a number of wide-car movements that need to use this track. CSX should research this issue and provide the frequency when a freight train will have to use this track.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

Ø This improvement will enhance capacity and reliability.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 65

BENEFITS OF IMPROVEMENT:

Improvement Element Beneficiaries Rating

Travel Time None

CPR would be the principal beneficiary, with occasional benefits Capacity Low to CSX. However, the number of “high and wide” cars through the station complex is currently low.

CPR would be the principal beneficiary, with occasional benefits Reliability & Schedule Recovery Low to CSX. However, the number of “high and wide” cars through the station complex is currently low.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES:

There is no significant potential for social and economic impacts to the surrounding environment.

There is no evidence of any cultural resources or historic structures within this project area.

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACT SHEETS Page 66

PAGE PURPOSELY LEFT BLANK

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report November 2005 SYSTRA Engineering, Inc.