Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS 3. Alternatives This chapter describes program alternatives, including how they were developed, and examines the engineering aspects of all feasible alternatives to address the program purpose, needs, and objectives described in Chapter 1. Alternatives that were considered, but not advanced for further study, are also described along with the reasons for not advancing them. There are several aspects to each alternative including operational changes, investments in infrastructure, and equipment. The reasonable alternatives advanced for further study are compared in Chapter 6. The specific operational and physical elements used to define the alternatives consist of: • Maximum authorized speed (MAS); • Frequency of service; • Schedule enhancements, including express service; • Track, bridge, signal and grade crossing improvements; • Station and facility improvements; • Equipment (locomotives and coaches); • Capital costs at a program level; and • Operations and maintenance costs. The performance measures used to gauge how each alternative meets program goals and objectives include: • Trip time, • On-time performance (OTP), • Ridership, and • Revenue. The improvements needed in infrastructure and train service performance, include: • Reduce infrastructure constraints, and • Accommodate existing and projected demand. The following performance objectives have been identified for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program as measurable objectives that directly relate to the program purpose and need to reduce infrastructure constraints to accommodate existing and projected demand: • Improve system-wide on-time performance (OTP) to at least 90 percent; • Reduce travel time along all segments of the Empire Corridor; • Increase the frequency of service (number of daily round trips) along Empire Corridor West beyond the existing four daily round trips; • Attract additional passengers; • Reduce automobile trips, thereby reducing highway congestion; High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-1 New York State Department of Transportation Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives • Minimize interference with freight rail operations. These six performance objectives are used to evaluate and rank how the high-speed rail alternatives meet the goals and objectives for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The environmental impacts of these alternatives are also considered, as presented in this Tier 1 Draft EIS, and will be an important factor in selecting the alternative to be advanced. 3.1. Alternatives Development and Screening The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has established three levels of high-speed rail service along with planning guidelines for each: Emerging, Regional and Core Express as shown in Exhibit 3-1. The “Emerging” category is used to describe relatively frequent service used to connect smaller communities, and having speeds up to 90 miles per hour (mph), on tracks shared by freight, commuter, and intercity passenger rail. Exhibit 3-1—FRA Levels of High-Speed Rail Service Source: FRA. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America: High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. April 2009. Page 3-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program New York State Department of Transportation Chapter 3 – Alternatives Tier 1 Draft EIS The “Regional” category is used to describe relatively frequent service used to connect mid-sized urban areas, and having speeds between 90 and 125 mph, on tracks that may be shared by freight, commuter, and intercity passenger rail or on tracks dedicated for passenger rail. The “Core Express” category is used to describe frequent service used to connect large urban areas, and having speeds between 125 and 250 mph or more, on tracks dedicated for intercity passenger rail. Alternatives development for this program initially began with categorizing possible alternatives according to the FRA’s levels of high-speed rail service. Using this information, NYSDOT developed an initial range of possible alternatives within the framework of these categories to satisfy the program purpose (refer to Section 1.3). Each service level achieves different goals, provides different top speeds, and requires different kinds and levels of investments. The initial range of possible alternatives developed for this program included six groups organized by the maximum authorized speed associated with each group. The naming convention of the alternatives is based on these groupings according to the maximum authorized speed (MAS) (79 mph, 90 mph, 110 mph, 125 mph, 160 mph, and 220 mph) with variations of the speed-based alternative designated by the letters A, B, and C. • Using 79 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed represents what can be done with current track standards and in-cab signaling capacity. Alternatives in this category that would use current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets included several variations on the 79 mph alternative (Base, 79A, 79B, 79C) and would fall into the FRA’s “Emerging” category. • Using 90 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed represents the next step up in track standards and in-cab signaling train control. Alternatives in this category that would use current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets included several variations on the 90 mph alternative (90A and 90B) and would fall into the FRA’s “Regional” category. • Using 110 miles per hour as the maximum authorized speed represents another step up in track standards. Described as the “110 Alternative,” this alternative would also use current vehicle technology with the possibility of integrated trainsets and would fall into FRA’s “Regional” category. • A 125 miles per hour alternative would be the first speed threshold for electrically powered trains and represents another step up in track standards and advanced train control. This alternative would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category. • A 160 miles per hour alternative would represent the practical upper limit of electrified dynamic tilt trains, such as the Amtrak Acela, which provide faster operating speeds on curves. This alternative represents another step up in track standards and advanced train control and would fall into FRA’s “Core Express” category. • A 220 miles per hour alternative represents the practical upper limit of high-speed rail operations seen in France, Germany, Spain, Japan and China and would fall within FRA’s “Core Express” category. High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 3-3 New York State Department of Transportation Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Alternatives In addition to maximum authorized speed, alternatives are further described in terms of service schedules, station stops, equipment, and physical improvements. 3.1.1. Service Schedules and Station Stops Service frequency was the next consideration in developing and defining alternatives. Three service levels were considered: • The existing four round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo; • Increasing the service to 12 round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls; • Increasing the service to eight round trips per day between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls with express service. An initial group of alternatives was defined that focused on improving the reliability (on-time performance [OTP]) of the existing four round trips per day service. This approach focused on identifying capital improvements to support an 85 percent to 90 percent OTP level between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls, while maintaining the existing four daily round trips service. A second group of alternatives was defined that increased service levels to 12 round trips per day as well as improved reliability. Preliminary Empire Corridor ridership was estimated in an iterative process based on varied levels of service frequency. Initial ridership forecasts were based on service frequencies between Albany-Rensselaer, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls of 12 round trips per day. This would be a substantial service expansion with estimated gains in ridership of about 65 percent. The ridership gains would be significantly less than the percentage increase in service levels (300%). Therefore, daily service levels of 12 round trips were determined to be very high when compared to the relatively low increase in ridership gained for the projected service increase. NYSDOT determined that a third group of alternatives with service levels of eight round trips per day as well as improved reliability was a reasonable initial balance between service attractiveness and operating subsidy affordability. This doubling of the existing service would result in ridership gains of approximately 38 percent to 74 percent over the Base Alternative depending on the alternative analyzed. The Base, or “No Action,” Alternative represents future conditions assuming currently-planned and approved projects are built, but without implementation of any of the “Build” Alternatives of this High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program. The Base Alternative is used for comparison to all Build Alternatives. In addition to determining the appropriate service level (eight round trips per day), the concept of providing express service was also evaluated along the Empire Corridor West during development of the alternatives. Two of the alternatives, Alternatives 90A and 125, would offer some form of express service between New York City and Niagara Falls. Page 3-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program New York State