DOCSLIB.ORG

Sunnyside Yard (Staten Island)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sunnyside Yard (Staten Island) 22 - Sunnyside Yard (Staten Island) August 2016 Notice The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter “NYSERDA”) or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related matters in the reports we publish. Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright or other use restrictions regarding the content of reports that they write, in compliance with NYSERDA’s policies and federal law. If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, please email [email protected] ii Amtrak New York City Microgrid Feasibility Study Microgrid Project Results and Final Written Documentation Prepared for: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) John Love, Project Manager 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Prepared by: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Date Submitted: April 8, 2016 Contract Number: 65114, Task 5 Points of Contact Authorized for the Amtrak New York City Microgrid Study: Michelle Isenhouer Hanlin 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 717-501-8509 Email: [email protected] Booz Allen NY PRIZE, Amtrak NYC – TASK 5 April 8, 2016 Notice This report was prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter “NYSERDA”). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related matters in the reports we publish. Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright or other use restrictions regarding the content of reports that they write, in compliance with NYSERDA’s policies and federal law. If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, please email [email protected]. Booz | Allen | Hamilton i NY PRIZE, Amtrak NYC – TASK 5 April 8, 2016 Abstract Together with Amtrak, Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Ed), and New York City, Booz Allen Hamilton has completed the feasibility study for a proposed community microgrid. This study summarizes the findings and recommendations, results, lessons learned, and benefits of the proposed microgrid. The Project Team has determined the project is feasible, though not without challenges. The commercial and financial viability of the project are summarized in this document. The Amtrak NYC microgrid project faces the challenge of high capital costs, but it is a financially feasible, investable project. New distributed energy resources (DERs), including a combined heat and power (CHP) unit, two natural gas reciprocating generators, a solar photovoltaic (PV) array, and a zinc air battery storage unit, will provide reliable, low-emission electricity and thermal energy to customers while providing a proof of concept for a transit- oriented community microgrid in investor-owned utility (IOU) territory. Two existing standby generators will also be interconnected to improve the resilience of the energy supply in island mode. Many of the takeaways of the feasibility study may be generalized across the spectrum of NY Prize and community microgrids. Keywords: NY Prize, NYSERDA, distributed energy resources, energy resilience, clean energy, DER, Amtrak, and NYC Booz | Allen | Hamilton ii NY PRIZE, Amtrak NYC – TASK 5 April 8, 2016 Contents Notice ......................................................................................................................................... i Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Figures ..................................................................................................................................... vi Tables...................................................................................................................................... vii Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. ix Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ xi 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 2. Microgrid Capabilities and Technical Design and Configuration ...................................1 2.1 Project Purpose and Need.............................................................................................. 1 2.2 Microgrid Required and Preferred Capabilities (Sub Tasks 1.1 and 1.2) ........................ 2 2.2.1 Serving Multiple, Physically Separated Critical Facilities ............................................................... 2 2.2.2 Limited Use of Diesel Fueled Generators ....................................................................................... 2 2.2.3 Local Power in both Grid-Connected and Island Mode ................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Intentional Islanding ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.5 Resynchronization to Con Ed Power .............................................................................................. 4 2.2.6 Standardized Interconnection ......................................................................................................... 4 2.2.7 24/7 Operation Capability .............................................................................................................. 6 2.2.8 Two Way Communication with Local Utility ................................................................................. 6 2.2.9 Voltage and Frequency Synchronism When Connected to the Grid ................................................ 6 2.2.10 Load Following and Frequency and Voltage Stability When Islanded ............................................. 6 2.2.11 Diverse Customer Mix................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.12 Resiliency to Weather Conditions .................................................................................................. 7 2.2.13 Black Start Capability .................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.14 Energy Efficiency Upgrades .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.15 Cyber Security .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.16 Use of Microgrid Logic Controllers ............................................................................................... 9 2.2.17 Smart Grid Technologies ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2.18 Smart Meters ............................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.19 Distribution Automation .............................................................................................................. 10 2.2.20 Energy Storage ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • TRAIN OPERATIONS: the Acela Express 2021 Program Faces Oversight Weaknesses and Schedule Risks
    TRAIN OPERATIONS: The Acela Express 2021 Program Faces Oversight Weaknesses and Schedule Risks OIG-A-2018-002 | November 16, 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Memorandum To: Scot L. Naparstek Executive Vice President / Chief Operating Officer DJ Stadtler Executive Vice President / Chief Administration Officer Stephen Gardner Executive Vice President / Chief Commercial Officer From: Stephen Lord Assistant Inspector General, Audits Date: November 16, 2017 Subject: Train Operations: The Acela Express 2021 Program Faces Oversight Weaknesses and Schedule Risks (OIG-A-2018-002) In August 2016, Amtrak (the company) received a federal loan1 to purchase 28 new high-speed trainsets for $1.6 billion and undertake 10 infrastructure improvements needed to operate and maintain these trains for $850 million. Collectively, these projects—called the Acela Express 2021 program—represent the company's largest single investment in its 46 years of service. The new equipment will replace the 20 Acela trainsets currently providing high-speed service on the Northeast Corridor, allowing the company to increase service frequency between Washington, D.C., and Boston, Massachusetts. The Acela Express 2021 program is in the design stage. The trainset contractor, Alstom, is scheduled to deliver the first prototype in December 2019, and the new trainsets are scheduled to enter revenue service starting in January 2021. In addition, all 10 of the related infrastructure projects are in the design phase, and construction is scheduled from 2018 to 2021. Four of these projects must be completed before the new trains enter revenue service. They are aimed at improving the company’s service and inspection 1 This loan was provided through the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, which provides direct federal loans and guarantees to finance railroad infrastructure development.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Constructing and Maintaining Midday Car Storage Facilities for the LIRR
    INSTITUTE FOR RATIONAL URBAN MOBILITY, INC. George Haikalis One Washington Square Village, Suite 5D President New York, NY 10012 212-475-3394 [email protected] www.irum.org Memo: To: Meta Brunzema and Dan Gutman From: George Haikalis, President, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc. Date: May 21, 2007 Re: Preliminary Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Constructing and Maintaining Midday Car Storage Facilities for the LIRR Thanks for the opportunity to share some thoughts on the future of the LIRR West Side Yard and Sunnyside Yard A. These very preliminary findings are presented in the hope that a more detailed analysis of these concepts will be undertaken by MTA, which has the information and resources to explore them more fully. I. Key Findings: (1) MTA could maximize its gain from the sale of the LIRR West Side Yard if this property were cleared and sold as raw real estate for development. This gain would be further increased if two tracks were retained in the yard, and a new platform constructed, permitting a rail link between the yard site and Penn Station. In total, MTA’s gain – ranging from $1.0 billion to $2.0 billion – far exceeds the “present worth” of the annual incremental operating cost of sending cars now stored in this yard to existing yards further east in Queens and Long Island. This increased operating cost is estimated at $8.2 million per year. (2) MTA could reduce the cost of its LIRR East Side Access Project by dropping its plan to construct a new midday railcar storage yard at Yard A, just north of Amtrak’s Sunnyside Yard in Queens.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Potential for Commuter Train Run-Through Service at New York Penn Station August 7, 2014
    Analyzing the Potential for Commuter Train Run-Through Service at New York Penn Station August 7, 2014 Prepared by Amtrak Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Investment and Development And Amtrak Operations Research Groups Abstract This paper provides a brief review of Amtrak research on the potential of through running of commuter operations in Penn Station, New York. It is intended to help inform the larger community interested in the concept as well as to assist in the planning and analysis within a number of studies of Penn Station and the Northeast Corridor that are currently underway. The paper describes through running concepts in general, and then identifies operational and infrastructure conditions specific to Penn Station which should be addressed in order to undertake a successful revenue service. Analysis discussed in this paper finds that: commuter trains would lead to fewer peak a) absent the construction of purpose-built period trains and/or less reliable operations facilities to provide wider station platforms under representative service scenarios and, b) the introduction of more robust evaluated. vertical passenger access, a through running service with high performance service Potential Through Running Territory characteristics found in other railway systems is not achievable at Penn Station. Further, current operations are optimized around the existing terminal infrastructure with its two main support yards serving in a critical role to achieving very high levels of performance. Without investment in new station facilities to compensate for the utility provided by yards, the introduction of a through running revenue service with Table of Contents Who is interested in through running and why? .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Affordable and Feasible Project
    An Affordable and Feasible Project RUN modifies and coordinates existing proposals to make them more effective and maximize their benefit, which makes RUN achievable within the budget commitments the region has already set. The implementation and phasing strategy forRUN is both adaptable and scheduled to achieve its goals on the same timetable as existing proposals. Below: The construction timeline of RUN As described in more detail in the next chapter, Phase I of RUN establishes shows the duration and dependencies of the core network. All future components detailed in Phase II can be added in each component. any combination or order, which gives policymakers the flexibility to choose *Sources for RUN Phase I timeline can which specific projects to pursue and in which particular order based on be found in Appendix: Cost Estimates & conditions at the time. Phasing Timeline Sources RUN PHASE I TIMELINE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Gateway: New Trans-Hudson Tunnel Entrance - 2 yrs4 Gateway: Replacement of Portal Bridge - 5 yrs4 Replacement of Sawtooth Bridge - 4 yrs4 Gateway: EISStudies- 3.5 yrs4 Gateway: New Hudson Tunnels Design & Construction - 7 yrs4 Gateway: North Tunnels Rehab - 3 yrs4 Gateway: Sec. Railyard/Sec. Loop/Expanded Station/ Newark to Sec. Two-Track Alignment - 6 yrs4 Penn Expansion: Moynihan Station - 3 yrs5 Penn Station: Planning of Platforms + Tracks - 3 yrs* Construction can start earlier, but Penn Station: must be completed by 2029 Track Construction -4 yrs* Construction can start
    [Show full text]
  • And Description of the Preferred Alternative
    Project Alternatives Chapter 2: and Description of the Preferred Alternative 2.1 INTRODUCTION The proposed Hudson Tunnel Project (the Project or the Proposed Action) would consist of a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River (referred to as the Hudson River Tunnel), new surface tracks in New Jersey and railroad infrastructure connecting the new rail tunnel to the existing Northeast Corridor (NEC) in Secaucus, New Jersey and at Penn Station New York (PSNY), together with rehabilitation of the existing NEC tunnel beneath the Hudson River, known as the North River Tunnel. The primary purpose of the Project is to enable rehabilitation of the North River Tunnel without major disruptions to passenger rail service into and out of PSNY. In addition, when completed, the Project would result in a total of four tracks on the NEC from Secaucus, New Jersey, to PSNY with both the old and new tunnels in service. This would provide redundant capability and increased operational flexibility for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT), which both operate passenger trains on the NEC between New Jersey and New York. Since publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the Preferred Alternative has been refined from what was presented in the DEIS as a result of design advancement and changes made in response to comments received on the DEIS. Amtrak has continued to advance the design of the Preferred Alternative, including incorporating design refinements based on further engineering analysis and information, resulting in some modifications to the design presented in the DEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2020-2024
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2020-2024 March 2019 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 freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. Contents Letter from the Co-Chair 1 Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction 5 2. FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan 7 Project Information Appendix 19 A. Capital Renewal of Basic Infrastructure 20 Figure A-1. Amtrak FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 22 Figure A-2. Metro-North Railroad FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 23 Figure A-3. Connecticut DOT FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 24 Figure A-4. MBTA FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 26 B. Special Projects 28 Figure B-1. Summary of special project funding requirements 29 Figure B-2. Special project listing by coordinating agency 34 Letter from the Co-Chair The Northeast Corridor is the nation’s busiest and most complex passenger railroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Richard Anderson President & Chief Executive Officer
    Testimony of Richard Anderson President & Chief Executive Officer National Railroad Passenger Corporation Before the United States House of Representatives House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure The Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in our Nation’s Infrastructure Cannot Wait Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:30 a.m. Amtrak 1 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 906-3918 INTRODUCTION Good morning, and thank you Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and all of the mem- bers of this Committee for holding this important hearing to discuss the urgent need to invest in our nation’s infrastructure. My name is Richard Anderson, and I serve as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak. I started as CEO in 2017 and prior to that I served as the CEO for Delta Air Lines, CEO for Northwest Airlines, and the President of Commercial Business at United Health Group. It is my pleasure to testify before you today on behalf of our 20,000 dedicated employees. Today, I am going to discuss why we should not delay investment in intercity passenger rail and the consequences if we do wait; I will describe some of the major infrastructure, equipment, and stations projects Amtrak plans to advance over the next five years; and I will provide context for why intercity passenger rail has a bright future if we make smart investments and decisions as we prepare for the next generation. THE COST OF DOING NOTHING Unseen by many, and unconsidered by most, the structures and assets that make up America’s infrastructure lie at the heart of our economy and enable every one of us to live our lives in safety and comfort.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Testimony
    Testimony before the New York State Senate Standing Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions and the Senate Standing Committee on Transportation May 7, 2021 10:00 a.m. Virtual Testimony given by: Dennis Newman, Executive Vice President – Planning and Asset Development Gerhard Williams, Vice President and Chief Engineer Clavel Crump, Director of Capital Construction Thank you Chairmen (Leroy) Comrie and (Tim) Kennedy for the opportunity to testify today to the commitments that Amtrak has made and the plans we are developing for the work to restore our railroad infrastructure in New York, especially the tunnels under the East River. My name is Dennis Newman. I am the Executive Vice President of Planning and Asset Development for Amtrak. I am joined by Gery Williams, our Vice President and Chief Engineer as well as Clavel Crump, Director of Capital Construction. Clavel was one of the first on the scene after Superstorm Sandy flooded the East and North River Tunnels in 2012 – he has been instrumental in removing the water and caring for the tunnels ever since. Today we will touch on the status of plans for rehabilitation of the East River Tunnel, and related work in support of MTA projects such as East Side Access and Penn Station Access. These projects are all interdependent and must be closely linked if we are to realize our vision for a robust transportation network that supports not just the economy of America’s largest city but the rest of the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston – a territory that accounts for some 20% of America’s GDP.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 220/Friday, November 14, 2003/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2003 / Notices 64675 individuals with disabilities. Sign and ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an project Web site at http:// oral interpretation can be made Environmental Impact Statement. www.accesstotheregionscore.com and available if requested 10 calendar days will be available at the scoping before the meeting. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit meetings. Scoping material may also be Administration (FTA) is issuing this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: obtained by contacting David notice to advise other agencies and the Trish Butera or Lydia Leeds, RSAC Widawsky, Project Manager, at the NJ public that, in accordance with the Coordinators, FRA, 1120 Vermont TRANSIT address given in ADDRESSES National Environmental Policy Act and Avenue, NW., Stop 25, Washington, DC below or by calling toll-free 1–877– its implementing regulations, FTA and 20590, (202) 493–6212/6213 or Grady ARC–0999 or by e-mailing the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator [email protected]. TRANSIT), in partnership with the Port for Safety Standards and Program Authority of New York & New Jersey ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Development, FRA, 1120 Vermont (PANYNJ), intend to prepare an project scope should be forwarded to Avenue NW., Mailstop 25, Washington, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) David Widawsky, Project Manager, NJ DC 20590, (202) 493–6302. to evaluate alternatives that increase TRANSIT, One Penn Plaza East, 4th SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant transit capacity across the Hudson River Floor, Newark, NJ 07105–2246 or via e- to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal to meet the growing demand for travel mail to Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5B: Transportation Services
    Chapter 5B: Transportation Services 5B.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 5 of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) presents the evaluation the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) conducted of the impacts of construction and operation of the Hudson Tunnel Project on transportation conditions. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), in its role as Project Sponsor, has accepted and relied on the evaluations and conclusions of this chapter. This chapter is divided into two subchapters, Chapter 5A, “Traffic and Pedestrians,” and Chapter 5B, “Transportation Services” (this chapter). Chapter 5A presents the evaluation of the Project’s effects during construction and operations on vehicular traffic on roadways and on pedestrian conditions. Chapter 5B presents the evaluation of the Project’s effects during construction and operation on the transportation services operating in the Project area, including passenger rail service (intercity passenger rail service and commuter rail services); the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) and New York City subway service; surface bus operations; Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) rail service; freight rail; ferry and other maritime services; and helicopter operations at the West 30th Street Heliport in Manhattan. Unlike other chapters of this EIS that follow, this chapter is organized by transportation mode rather than geography. This chapter reflects the following changes made since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Hudson Tunnel Project: • The chapter is updated to describe current conditions in the affected environment and any related updates to the analysis of potential impacts. • The chapter includes revisions and clarifications in response to comments FRA and NJ TRANSIT received during the public comment period for the DEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision: NEC FUTURE a Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts July 2017
    Appendix B (Definition of Decision Matrix and Schematic) Record of Decision: NEC FUTURE A Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts July 2017 APPENDIX B: DEFINITION OF DECISION MATRIX AND SCHEMATIC Prepared by: For more information contact: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea, Northeast Corridor Joint Program Advisor Office of Railroad Policy and Development One Bowling Green, Suite 429 New York, NY 10004 FRA Record of Decision: NEC FUTURE Appendix B: Defintion of Decision Matrix and Schematic 1 Introduction The following Definition of Decision Matrix (Matrix) and Schematic (Schematic) describe the Selected Alternative service and performance objectives and infrastructure elements by geographic segment. In all cases, the geographic segment objectives and elements are consistent with the corridor-wide objectives and elements described in the Record of Decision (ROD) document. The Matrix and Schematic include details by segment not described in the ROD document itself and provide further detail about the characteristics of the Selected Alternative for specific geographic segments as a framework to stakeholders, NEC states, and railroads as they work towards advancing the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative infrastructure elements are not inclusive of all minor improvements or programmatic upgrades (i.e., curve adjustment, track realignment, signal improvements, catenary replacement, etc.) necessary to meet the service and performance objectives and for the safe and reliable operation of the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Although not specified in the ROD, the FRA will review, to the extent authorized, these minor improvements for consistency with the Selected Alternative service and performance objectives. The Matrix and Schematic identify station improvements within each geographic segment.
    [Show full text]