DOCSLIB.ORG

Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report October 2015 Amended TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 DOCUMENT PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Alternatives Development Process Overview .................................................................. 5 2.1 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 9 3. Technology ........................................................................................................................ 12 4. Alternatives Refinement ................................................................................................... 14 4.1 SERVICE PLANNING ................................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.1 Service Plans ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Service Types ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 Rolling Stock ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.1.4 Enhanced Service Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 19 4.1.5 Freight Rail ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 RIDERSHIP ............................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Integration of the Interregional and Regional Forecasts ...................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Interregional Markets ............................................................................................................................................ 26 4.2.3 Regional Markets ................................................................................................................................................. 31 4.2.4 Model Inputs and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.2.5 Model Outputs ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS .......................................................................................... 35 4.4 CAPITAL COSTS ...................................................................................................................................... 36 4.4.1 Linear Elements ................................................................................................................................................... 36 4.4.2 Supporting Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 38 4.5 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC OUTREACH ............................................................................................. 39 4.5.1 State Transportation Agencies and Railroad Operators ....................................................................................... 40 4.5.2 Public Open Houses ............................................................................................................................................. 40 5. North End Route Options Evaluation .............................................................................. 41 5.1 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 ROUTE OPTIONS BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY AND HARTFORD ........................................................ 44 5.3 ROUTE OPTIONS BETWEEN HARTFORD AND BOSTON ..................................................................... 48 5.4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 51 6. Characteristics of the No Action and Action Alternatives ............................................. 54 6.1 MARKETS ................................................................................................................................................. 54 6.1.1 Stations ................................................................................................................................................................ 55 6.2 REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE ..................................................................................................................... 56 6.3 SERVICE PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 56 6.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 57 7. No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 58 7.1 MARKETS ................................................................................................................................................. 59 Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report 1 7.2 REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE ..................................................................................................................... 59 7.3 SERVICE PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 59 7.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 62 8. Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 63 8.1 MARKETS ................................................................................................................................................. 63 8.2 REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE ..................................................................................................................... 63 8.3 SERVICE PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 63 8.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 64 8.4.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects ................................................................................................................................... 64 8.4.2 New Track ............................................................................................................................................................ 65 8.4.3 New Segment ....................................................................................................................................................... 65 9. Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................... 67 9.1 MARKETS ................................................................................................................................................. 67 9.2 REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE ..................................................................................................................... 69 9.3 SERVICE PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 69 9.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 69 9.4.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects ................................................................................................................................... 70 9.4.2 New Track ............................................................................................................................................................ 70 9.4.3 New Segment ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 10. Alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The California High Speed Rail Proposal: a Due Diligence Report
    September 2008 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPO S AL : A DUE DILIGENCE REPOR T By Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D. POLICY STUDY 370 Reason Citizens Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation Government Waste Foundation reason.org cagw.org hjta.org/hjtf Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance Citizens Against Government Waste Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation a free society by developing, applying and (CAGW) is a private, nonprofit, nonparti- (HJTF) is devoted to promoting economic promoting libertarian principles, including education, the study of tax policy and san organization dedicated to educating the individual liberty, free markets and the rule defending the interests of taxpayers in the American public about waste, mismanage- of law. We use journalism and public policy courts. research to influence the frameworks and ment, and inefficiency in the federal govern- The Foundation funds and directs stud- actions of policymakers, journalists and ment. ies on tax and economic issues and works opinion leaders. CAGW was founded in 1984 by J. Peter to provide constructive alternatives to the Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public Grace and nationally-syndicated columnist tax-and-spend proposals from our state policy research promotes choice, competi- Jack Anderson to build support for imple- legislators. tion and a dynamic market economy as the HJTF also advances the interests of mentation of the Grace Commission recom- foundation for human dignity and progress. taxpayers in the courtroom. In appro- mendations and other waste-cutting propos- Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed priate cases, HJTF provides legal repre- research and directly engages the policy als.
    [Show full text]
  • ITS 500 Series the New Alsaldobreda/Firema Meneghino Train for Milan
    Connectors ITS 500 ITS 500 Series Reverse Bayonet Single Pole Power Connector Introduction New York MTA The new AlsaldoBreda/Firema Glenair is proud to supply connectors and Meneghino train for Milan, Italy interconnect systems for various programs for the The Meneghino is a new six-car dual- New York MTA. voltage train for the Metropolitana Milanese Glenair interconnects are employed on critical (Milan underground). It belongs to the “MNG” Traction Motor System and Intercar Jumper (Metropolitana di Nuova Generazione or Metro applications on the M8 EMU Railcars supplied by New Generation) family.The MNG is designed and Kawasaki for Metro North Railroad. manufactured in cooperation with Ansaldo Breda, a premier Italian rail transport and engineering company. Each train is built with two identical traction units, in the “Rp-M-M” configuration: Each unit includes one trailer coach (Rp) equipped with a driver’s cab, and two intermediate motor coaches (M) without a driver’s cab. C The M8 is an electric multiple unit (EMU) railroad car built by Kawasaki for use on the New Haven Line of the Metro-North Railroad. Photo: office of Dannel Malloy Glenair has also supplied product for numerous applications on the Long Island Railroad / Metro North M9 cars such as Traction Motor Systems, Intercar Jumpers, Lighting, Communication, HVAC, Converters, as well as others. The new AlsaldoBreda/Firema Meneghino train for Milan, Italy The electrically - controlled passenger doors (8 on each coach) grant a high reliability standard and very low maintenance. The train is equipped with a highly advanced Passengers’ Audio/ Video Information System. With this system, passengers receive informational messages and video The EMU M9 railcars will replace the M-3 fleet and regarding train service, broadcast directly to LCD expand the electric fleet for East Side Access.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowery - Houston - Bleecker Transportation Study (Congestion Analysis)
    Bowery - Houston - Bleecker Transportation Study (Congestion Analysis) Technical Memorandum No. 1 - Existing Conditions P.I.N. PTDT11D00.H07 DRAFT December 2011 Bowery – Houston - Bleecker Transportation Study Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing Conditions PTDT11D00.H07 The preparation of this report has been financed in part through funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FTA) through the New York State Department of transportation and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. This document is disseminated by the New York City of transportation in the interest of information exchange. It reflects the views of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented. The report does not necessarily reflect any official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, the federal Highway Administration or the State of New York. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Prepared by: New York City Department of Transportation Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner Lori Ardito, First Deputy Commissioner Gerard Soffian, Deputy Commissioner Ryan Russo, Assistant Commissioner Margaret Forgione, Manhattan Borough Commissioner Naim Rasheed, Project Director Michael Griffith, Deputy Project Director Harvey LaReau, Project Manager Hilary Gietz, Principal Administrative Assistant Joe Li, City Planner Ali Jafri, Highway Transportation Specialist Milorad Ubiparip, Highway Transportation Specialist Eva Marin, Highway Transportation Specialist Table of Contents S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Introduction S.2 Demographics S.3 Zoning and Land Use S.4 Traffic and Transportation S.5 Public Transportation S.6 Parking S.7 Pedestrians and Bicycles S.8 Accidents/Safety S.9 Goods Movements S.10 Public Participation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Railway Station Liège-Guillemins
    Reference report Railway station Liège-Guillemins A shining example of a European transport hub in the Wallonia region Designing clean entrances Liège-Guillemins: Liège‘s high-speed railway station The most important railway station in the Belgian city of Liège and in Fresh momentum for the city the Wallonia region as a whole, Liège-Guillemins was erected in Sep- This image of communication and transparency stands in sharp con- tember 2009 on the basis of designs by Santiago Calatrava. It is a stop- trast to the structure that preceded it. The old railway station, a 1958 ping point for Thalys and Intercity-Express trains, making the station a building that had fallen into disrepair, attempted to exert a sense of hub within the European high-speed network that runs between Lon- control over the growing numbers of railway services it saw – but the don, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Cologne/Frankfurt: the distance glass and steel work of art that replaces it exudes light and radiance between Cologne and Liège can now be covered in just under an hour. and has given fresh momentum to Belgium‘s third-largest city. Oth- A good 500 trains per day are accommodated by this through station, er projects involving the station are being planned and the recently whose monumental canopy transforms it into a real landmark. opened Médiacité shopping and media centre, designed by Ron Arad, has created another new highlight. The futuristic station complex has Guiding principles: Communication and transparency a pivotal role to play in all these developments. The steel and glass roof – at once powerful and delicate – hangs above the platform like a colossal wave and flows into the oscillating roof Daylight on every level that reaches up to 50 metres over the 33,000-square metre main hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation Plan for Sustainable Development in the New York - Connecticut Metropolitan Region
    Implementation Plan for Sustainable Development in the New York - Connecticut Metropolitan Region MAY 30, 2014 DRAFT: June 2, 2014 - 13:33 SCI Implementation Plan Draft 20140602_final.indd 1 About the New York-Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium NY-CT Sustainable Communities Consortium The New York – Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium is supported by a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities Regional Planning Grant. The Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program is a key initiative of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a federal partnership joining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and HUD with a shared mission to coordinate federal housing, transportation, water, and other infrastructure investments to make neighborhoods more prosperous, allow people to live closer to jobs, save households time and money, and reduce pollution . Partners in the NY-CT Sustainable Communities Consortium An Advisory Board was formed to monitor the progress of include cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, Consortium activities, provide recommendations, and review and non-profit organizations across Long Island, New York City, and comment on Consortium work programs. Advisory lower Hudson Valley, and coastal Connecticut: Board members include both governmental agencies and non- governmental organizations in the tri-state New York/New Regional Plan Association, partner and fiduciary agent Jersey/Connecticut
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
    [Show full text]
  • No Action Alternative Report
    No Action Alternative Report April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. NEC FUTURE Background ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. Approach to No Action Alternative.............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS .................................................................................... 4 3.2 DISINVESTMENT SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 4. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 TRAIN SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE RAIL PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Funded Projects or Projects with Approved Funding Plans (Category 1) ............................................................. 9 4.2.2 Funded or Unfunded Mandates (Category 2) .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • M7 Electric Multiple Unitанаnew York
    Electric Multiple Unit -M- 7 POWERCAR WITH TOILET ---10' 6' B END FEND I 3,200 mi , -: -" 0 C==- ~=0 :- CJCJ ~~[] CJCJCJCJCJCJ [] I D b 01 " ~) -1::1 1211-1/2 t~J ~~W ~~IL...I ~w -A'-'1~~~- I ~~ 309~mmt ~ 1 I~ 11 m 2205~16~m-! 591..1.6" mm --I I 1- -- 59°6" ° 4°8-1/2. , ~ 16,~:,60~m ~-- -;cl 10435mm ~ .-1 25.908 mm F END GENERAL DATA wheelchair locations 2 type of vehicle electric multiple unit passenger per car (seated) under design operator Metropolitan Transportation Authority passengers per car (standing) crush load under design Long Island Railroad order date May 1999 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS quantity 113 power cars without toilet .power fed by third rail: 400-900 Vdc 113 power cars with toilet .auxiliary voltages: 230 Vac / 3 ph / 60 Hz train consist up to 14 cars 72 Vdc .AC traction motor: 265 hp (200 kW) DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHf Metric Imperial .dynamic and pneumatic (tread & disc) braking system length over coupler 25,908 mm 85'0" .coil spring primary suspension width over side sheets 3,200 mm 10'6" .air-bag secondary suspension rail to roof height 3,950 mm 12' II Y;" .stainless steel carbody rail to top of floor height I ,295 mm 51" .fabricated steel frame trucks rail to top of height 4,039 mm 13' 3" .automatic parking brake doorway width 1,270 mm 50" .forced-air ventilation doorway height 1,981 mm 6'6" .air-conditioning capacity of 18 tons floor to high ceiling height 2,261 mm 89" .electric strip heaters floor to low ceiling height 2,007 mm 79" .ADA compliant toilet room (8 car) wheel diameter 914 mm 36" .vacuum sewage system
    [Show full text]
  • From the Lancaster Chapter, Inc., N.R.H.S
    1935 - 2016 VOLUME 47 NUMBER 12 D ISTRICT 2 - CHAPTER WEBSITE : WWW .NRHS 1. ORG DECEMBER 2016 NEW YORK CENTRAL CHRISTMAS 1950 ADVERTISING POSTER MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM THE LANCASTER CHAPTER , INC ., N.R.H.S. Lancaster DispatcherPage 2 December 2016 THE POWER DIRECTOR “NEWS FROM THE RAILROAD WIRES ” skilled, is fallible, which is why technology was developed to backstop human vulnerabilities," said NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart in a statement released in May. "Had positive train control been in place on that stretch of track, this entirely preventable tragedy would not have happened." AMTRAK NOTCHES RIDERSHIP, REVENUE RECORDS FOR FISCAL 2016 By Bob Johnston, Oct. 21, 2016 - Trains News Wire WASHINGTON — Amtrak broke revenue and ridership records in its 2016 fiscal year despite dire predictions that passenger patronage would suffer with continued low fuel prices. Amtrak carried about 31.2 million passengers, up 1.3 percent from 2015, generating $2.2 billion in ticket revenue, up 0.03 percent, according to recent reports from the national passenger railroad. Those numbers not only beat last year, in which the May 2015 derailment of Northeast Regional train No. 188 shut down the Northeast Corridor near Philadelphia for several days, but also edged 2014. That year saw 30.9 million passengers and was the record year using data generated from hand-held scanners. In January, then-Amtrak President Joe Boardman announced company-wide austerity measures and a revised forecast, which projected a $167.3-million ticket revenue shortfall compared with the amount originally budgeted. When the final tally came in, however, revenue beat the revised downward forecast by 3.3 percent, but was still off 4.3 percent from the original 2016 AMTRAK SETTLES PHILADELPHIA CRASH fiscal year projection.
    [Show full text]
  • NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents
    Northeast Corridor One-Year Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2017 September 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. 2| NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents Introduction 6 Funding Summary 8 Baseline Capital Charge Program 10 1 - Boston South Station 12 16 - Shore to Girard 42 2 - Boston to Providence 14 17 - Girard to Philadelphia 30th Street 44 3 - Providence to Wickford Junction 16 18 - Philadelphia 30th Street - Arsenal 46 4 - Wickford Junction to New London 18 19 - Arsenal to Marcus Hook 48 5 - New London to New Haven 20 20 - Marcus Hook to Bacon 50 6 - New Haven to State Line 22 21 - Bacon to Perryville 52 7 - State Line to New Rochelle 24 22 - Perryville to WAS 54 8 - New Rochelle to Harold Interlocking 26 23 - Washington Union Terminal 56 9 - Harold Interlocking to F Interlocking 28 24 - WAS to CP Virginia 58 10 - F Interlocking to PSNY 30 25 - Springfield to New Haven 60 11 - Penn Terminal 32 27 - Spuyten Duyvil to PSNY* 62 12 - PSNY to Trenton 34 28 - 30th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Service-Boston-Norfolk-March162020
    Effective March 16, 2020 VIRGINIA SERVICE - Southbound serving BOSTON - NEW YORK - WASHINGTON DC - CHARLOTTESVILLE - ROANOKE - RICHMOND - NEWPORT NEWS - NORFOLK and intermediate stations Amtrak.com BOOK TRAVEL, CHECK TRAIN STATUS, ACCESS YOUR ETICKET AND MORE THROUGH THE Amtrak app. 1-800-USA-RAIL Northeast Northeast Northeast Silver Northeast Northeast Service/Train Name4 Palmetto Cardinal Carolinian Carolinian Regional Regional Regional Star Regional Regional Train Number4 65 67 89 51 79 79 95 91 195 125 Normal Days of Operation4 FrSa Su-Th Daily SuWeFr SaSu Mo-Fr Mo-Fr Daily SaSu Mo-Fr 5/24,7/2, 5/25,7/3, 5/25,7/3, Will Also Operate4 9/6 9/7 9/7 5/24,7/2, 5/25,7/3, 5/25,7/3, 5/25,7/3, Will Not Operate4 9/6 9/7 9/7 9/7 R B y R B y R B y R s d y R B y R B y R B R s y R B R B On Board Service4 Q l å OQ l å O l å O l å O l å O l å O y Q å l å O y Q å y Q å Symbol 6 R95 Boston, MA ∑w-u Dp l9 30P l9 30P 6 05A 6 30A 36 05A –South Station Boston, MA–Back Bay Station ∑v- 9 36P 9 36P 6 10A 6 35A 3R6 10A Route 128, MA ∑w- l9 50P l9 50P 6 20A 6 45A 3R6 20A Providence, RI i1 ∑w- l10 22P l10 22P 6 45A 7 10A 36 45A Kingston, RI b2 ∑w- 10 48P 10 48P 7 06A 7 31A 37 06A Westerly, RI >w- 11 05P 11 05P 7 20A 7 45A 37 20A Mystic, CT > 11 17P 11 17P 7 30A 37 30A New London, CT (Casino b) ∑v- 11 31P 11 31P 7 43A 8 07A 37 43A Old Saybrook, CT ∑w- 11 53P 11 53P 8 02A 8 27A 38 02A Greenfield, MA >w 5 45A 5 45A Northampton, MA >v 6 10A 6 10A Holyoke, MA >v t 6 25A 6 25A Springfield, MA ∑v- Ar 6 53A 7 25A 6 53A Dp 7 05A 7 05A Windsor Locks, CT > 7 24A 7 44A 7 24A Windsor, CT > 7 29A 7 49A 7 29A Valley Flyer Train 495 Hartford, CT ∑v- Valley Flyer Train 495 7 39A 7 59A 7 39A Berlin, CT >v 7 49A 8 10A 7 49A Meriden, CT >v 7 58A 8 19A 7 58A Wallingford, CT > 8 06A 8 27A 8 06A Amtrak Hartford Line Train 405 New Haven, CT–State St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ricardo Supports Siemens Mobility on New ICE Trains for Deutsche Bahn
    Ricardo plc Shoreham Technical Centre, Old Shoreham Road, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK Tel: +44 (0)1273 455 611 • Fax: +44 (0)1273 794 556 • Web: www.ricardo.com • Registered in England: 222915 PRESS RELEASE 14 September 2020 Ricardo supports Siemens Mobility on new ICE trains for Deutsche Bahn Siemens Mobility has nominated Ricardo Certification in the role of Notified Body for its project to supply 30 new high speed intercity express (ICE) trains for German national railway operator Deutsche Bahn The new trainsets, based on the Velaro MS design and due to be delivered into service starting in 2022, are part of a one billion Euro investment by Deutsche Bahn (DB) to expand its mainline fleet. Ricardo Certification is accredited by the EU Agency for Railways as a Notified Body (NoBo). In this role, the company is accredited to provide conformity assessments of trains and subsystems against the relevant requirements of the European Interoperability Directives 2008/57/EC and 2016/797/EC. Specifically, Ricardo Certification will verify the new ICE trains in terms of compliance with the current European Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) regulations, including the quality management system of the production process. Preparing DB for the future The new ICE trains will initially run on routes between the state of North Rhine- Westphalia and Munich via the high-speed Cologne-Rhine-Main line, increasing DB’s daily passenger capacity on these mainline routes by 13,000 seats. DB is investing in a strong future proof rail system and plans to expand its fleet by over 20 percent in the coming years.
    [Show full text]