DOCSLIB.ORG

NEC FUTURE a Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts July 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NEC FUTURE a Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts July 2017 Record of Decision: NEC FUTURE A Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts July 2017 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 Contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................. I 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. NEC FUTURE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Purpose Statement ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Need Statement ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Action Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.3 Preferred Alternative.............................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Alternatives Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.4 Summary of Public Feedback from Tier 1 Final EIS.............................................................................. 10 2.5 Identification of the Selected Alternative ........................................................................................... 12 3. NEC FUTURE DECISION ................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Overview of Selected Alternative ....................................................................................................... 14 3.2 IMPROVE RAIL SERVICE: Corridor-Wide Objectives ............................................................................ 17 3.2.1 Service and Performance ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Integrated Operations .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 MODERNIZE NEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Achieve a Reliable NEC ............................................................. 21 3.3.1 No Action Alternative and Related Projects ......................................................................................... 22 3.4 EXPAND RAIL CAPACITY: Add New Infrastructure Elements ............................................................... 22 3.5 STUDY NEW HAVEN TO PROVIDENCE CAPACITY ................................................................................. 31 3.6 Other Features of the Selected Alternative ........................................................................................ 32 3.6.1 Continued Rail Planning ....................................................................................................................... 32 3.6.2 Connecting Corridors ............................................................................................................................ 33 3.6.3 Station Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 33 3.6.4 Systems and Technology ...................................................................................................................... 34 3.6.5 Rolling Stock ......................................................................................................................................... 34 3.7 Geographic Description of the Selected Alternative ........................................................................... 36 3.7.1 Washington, D.C. .................................................................................................................................. 36 3.7.2 Maryland .............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.7.3 Delaware .............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.7.4 Pennsylvania ......................................................................................................................................... 38 3.7.5 New Jersey ........................................................................................................................................... 38 3.7.6 New York .............................................................................................................................................. 39 3.7.7 Connecticut .......................................................................................................................................... 39 3.7.8 Rhode Island ......................................................................................................................................... 40 3.7.9 Massachusetts ...................................................................................................................................... 40 3.8 Cost .................................................................................................................................................... 41 3.9 Key Benefits of the Selected Alternative ............................................................................................ 42 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MEASURES TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE HARM ........................................... 44 4.1 Tiered NEPA Process ........................................................................................................................... 44 4.2 Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................................................................... 44 4.2.1 Service-Related Effects ......................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.2 Footprint-Related Effects (Physical Effects) ......................................................................................... 45 4.2.3 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 46 4.3 Potential Measures to Avoid and Minimize Harm .............................................................................. 46 Page | i FRA Record of Decision: NEC FUTURE 4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative ............................................................................................. 48 5. IMPLEMENTING THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................. 49 5.1 FRA ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 5.1.1 FRA Commitments ................................................................................................................................ 50 5.2 Agency Roles ...................................................................................................................................... 50 5.2.1 FTA ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2.2 NEC Commission ................................................................................................................................... 51 5.2.3 Metropolitan Planning Organizations .................................................................................................. 51 5.2.4 Railroad Owners and Operators ........................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Service Development Plan .................................................................................................................. 52 5.4 Consistency with the Selected Alternative ......................................................................................... 52 5.4.1 Consistency Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 53 6. TIER 2 PROJECT STUDIES ............................................................................................................................. 55 6.1 Use of the Tier 1 EIS in Tier 2 Project Studies ...................................................................................... 55 6.2 Considerations for Tier 2 Project Studies ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Retrospective of Preservation Practice and the New York City Subway System
    Under the Big Apple: a Retrospective of Preservation Practice and the New York City Subway System by Emma Marie Waterloo This thesis/dissertation document has been electronically approved by the following individuals: Tomlan,Michael Andrew (Chairperson) Chusid,Jeffrey M. (Minor Member) UNDER THE BIG APPLE: A RETROSPECTIVE OF PRESERVATION PRACTICE AND THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Emma Marie Waterloo August 2010 © 2010 Emma Marie Waterloo ABSTRACT The New York City Subway system is one of the most iconic, most extensive, and most influential train networks in America. In operation for over 100 years, this engineering marvel dictated development patterns in upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. The interior station designs of the different lines chronicle the changing architectural fashion of the aboveground world from the turn of the century through the 1940s. Many prominent architects have designed the stations over the years, including the earliest stations by Heins and LaFarge. However, the conversation about preservation surrounding the historic resource has only begun in earnest in the past twenty years. It is the system’s very heritage that creates its preservation controversies. After World War II, the rapid transit system suffered from several decades of neglect and deferred maintenance as ridership fell and violent crime rose. At the height of the subway’s degradation in 1979, the decision to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the opening of the subway with a local landmark designation was unusual.
    [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]
  • Appendix G Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Part1
    Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources APPENDIX G G.1 Section 106 Effects Assessment and Relevant Correspondence G.2 Phase IA Studies and Relevant Correspondence G.3 Draft Programmatic Agreement G.4 Historic Architectural Resources Background Study (HARBS) and Relevant Correspondence G.5 Project Initiation Letter (PIL) Relevant Correspondence G.6 Miscellaneous Correspondence PENN STATION ACCESS PROJECT: Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation May 2021 Penn Station Access Project: Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f)Evaluation Appendix G. Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources G.1 SECTION 106 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT AND RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE MTA Metro-North Railroad Penn Station Access Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Section 106 Effects Assessment Prepared for: Prepared by: Lynn Drobbin & Associates, Historical Perspectives, Inc., and July 2019 Penn Station Access Project: Preliminary Environmental Assessment Section 106 Effects Assessment Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Project Description ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 PROJECT NEED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 PROPOSED SERVICE ..............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LEGEND Location of Facilities on NOAA/NYSDOT Mapping
    (! Case 10-T-0139 Hearing Exhibit 2 Page 45 of 50 St. Paul's Episcopal Church and Rectory Downtown Ossining Historic District Highland Cottage (Squire House) Rockland Lake (!304 Old Croton Aqueduct Stevens, H.R., House inholding All Saints Episcopal Church Complex (Church) Jug Tavern All Saints Episcopal Church (Rectory/Old Parish Hall) (!305 Hook Mountain Rockland Lake Scarborough Historic District (!306 LEGEND Nyack Beach Underwater Route Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve CP Railroad ROW Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve CSX Railroad ROW Rockefeller Park Preserve (!307 Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve NYS Canal System, Underground (! Rockefeller Park Preserve Milepost Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve )" Sherman Creek Substation Rockefeller Park Preserve Rockefeller Park Preserve Methodist Episcopal Church at Nyack *# Yonkers Converter Station Rockefeller Park Preserve Upper Nyack Firehouse ^ Mine Rockefeller Park Preserve Van Houten's Landing Historic District (!308 Park Rockefeller Park Preserve Union Church of Pocantico Hills State Park Hopper, Edward, Birthplace and Boyhood Home Philipse Manor Railroad Station Untouched Wilderness Dutch Reformed Church Rockefeller, John D., Estate Historic Site Tappan Zee Playhouse Philipsburg Manor St. Paul's United Methodist Church US Post Office--Nyack Scenic Area Ross-Hand Mansion McCullers, Carson, House Tarrytown Lighthouse (!309 Harden, Edward, Mansion Patriot's Park Foster Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church Irving, Washington, High School Music Hall North Grove Street Historic District DATA SOURCES: NYS DOT, ESRI, NOAA, TDI, TRC, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF Christ Episcopal Church Blauvelt Wayside Chapel (Former) First Baptist Church and Rectory ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (NYDEC), NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS RECREATION AND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION (OPRHP) Old Croton Aqueduct Old Croton Aqueduct NOTES: (!310 1.
    [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]
  • MTA Capital Program 2008–2013
    MTA Capital Program 2008–2013 February 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Overview: The MTA 2008-2013 Capital Program-- - i - “Building for the Future on a Firm Foundation” 2008-2013 Introduction: Investment Summary and Program Funding - 1 - I. Core CPRB Capital Program - 7 - MTA NYC Transit 2008-2013 Capital Program - 13 - Overview Program Plan MTA Long Island Rail Road 2008-2013 Capital Program - 45 - Overview Program Plan MTA Metro-North Railroad 2008-2013 Capital Program - 73 - Overview Program Plan MTA Bus Company 2008-2013 Capital Program - 101 - Overview Program Plan MTA Security 2008-2013 Capital Program - 111 - Overview Introduction MTA Interagency 2008-2013 Capital Program - 115 - Overview Program Plan II. Capacity Expansion - 123 - Completing the Current Expansion Projects: MTA Capital Construction Company: - 125 - Overview Program plan East Side Access Second Avenue Subway Fulton Street Transit Center South Ferry Terminal Regional Investments Miscellaneous 2005-2009 Capital Program New Capacity Expansion Investments - 141 - Overview Investments to Implement Congestion Pricing New Capacity Expansions to Support Regional Growth Communications Based Train Control Second Avenue Subway Next Phase Penn Station Access Jamaica Capacity Improvements #7 Fleet Expansion Capacity Planning Studies Sustainability Investments Program Project Listings (blue pages) - 149 - (not paginated; follows order above, beginning with blue pages for MTA NYC Transit and ending with blue pages for MTA Capital Construction Company) MTA Bridges and Tunnels 2008-2013 Capital Program - B-1 - Overview Program Plan Program Project Listings - B-25 - 2005-2009 Capital Program THE 2008-2013 CAPITAL PROGRAM: Building for the Future on a Firm Foundation In the early 1960’s, the New York Metropolitan Region’s mass transportation network faced financial collapse and a crisis of capacity.
    [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]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021 April 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission (the 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. Contents Letter from the Chair 4 Executive Summary 6 Overview 8 Implementing the Plan: Goals 10 Spotlight on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog 12 Implementing the Plan: Challenges 14 Implementing the Plan: Opportunities 16 Programs and Projects 18 Washington, DC to Philadelphia, PA 20 Philadelphia, PA to New Rochelle, NY 22 New Rochelle, NY to New Haven, CT 24 New Haven, CT to Boston, MA 26 Connecting Corridors 28 Project List and Other Appendices 30 Letter from the Chair The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is a vital asset for businesses, workers, residents, and visitors in the Northeast and beyond. Its eight commuter rail operators deliver hundreds of thousands of workers to some of the most productive economic centers in the country each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Trenton Transit Center to Oxford Valley Mall
    A ®SEPT 127March 9, 2020 ective Eff Trenton Transit Center to Oxford Valley Mall Serving Morrisville Customer Service 215-580-7800 TDD/TTY 215-580-7853 www.septa.org River Rd d S v NJT To Points North R to 29 206 E State St g A y ny Lafa Fro Clinton St Av le Hill Rd yette St nt St M d rd H Morrisville o oo TRENTON a e d D Br n allenber nw Y a R t e v e ey Yardley Morrisville Rd e Temporary W oad St g W Gre c Vall Shopping lm o R. n o rd a m r xfo o Detour rr Hamilton A o c O re e e h k Center n ry TRENTON St Francis A Pine Gr g R S A n v t v a d P TRANSIT Medical Center L 295 v en Makefield Rd n T s CENTER Chamber o d Ston y Market St wnship Line Rd R o Trenton A lv Oxford Valley Mall y y Hill Rd ve Rd a 206 alle d West n Chambersburg rd V R Big Oak Rd ia Txofo r y MORRISVILLE Clinton St O wn Center D Bu e A ck Dr ll v s St 295 s Town a lvd V M 1 Br B 127 Big Oak Rd oad St ty St n a Pennsbury almer St w Macy’s k o d P 29 t M e e d r l R i o f Plaza Liber d f i d Sesame e d d x 129 d y l i R 32 e l O d e D UA Oxfolrd k M l Place t a o Jefferson R e St a O v Valley w e V d Br W g 206 n i Bucks l oad St d Bridg Chestnut r r Shops at oodbourne Rd D 127 B B own S a o l T t f JCPenney v s o w Park x d k Makefield uc n Trenton A Lalor St O B y a Village H est r River LINE Lincoln i 1 l e l W Plaza Oxf R To Camden Big Oak Rd 1 or d R Woodbourne Square Valle d Woolston Rd 1 Connections at y Rd i OxfordOld Lincoln Valley Mall: Hwy 13 Ne v 14 129 wbold Rd e Lincoln Hwy 14, 127, 128, 1291 P 1 128 d ennsylv r risville R Lincoln Hwy or BUS Arleans M r NEW JERSEY 1 A e Bristol Rd Kings Plaza ania A 295 v w Court at Olds Blvd Lo uck B st o wn Dr Oxford Valley 129 vd N d v l R renton Rd B S.
    [Show full text]
  • Drmnsmay-July2013
    The Railyard Local Volume 12, Issue 3 -The Monthly Newsletter of the Danbury Railway Museum- May‐July 2013 DRM at GCT’s Grand In This Issue ~ Upcoming Events at DRM ‐ Page 2 Centennial Parade of Trains ~ Words from Our President ‐ Page 4 Huge crowds come to see famous and ~ Board of Directors News ‐ Page 5 historic railcars on display Plus . Ten Years Ago and New Members Danbury Railway Museum was honored to have five pieces of its rolling stock chosen to be dis‐ Burro Crane Revival played at Grand Central Terminal’s 100th anniversary Part 1 Introduction “Parade of Trains” the weekend of May 11th & 12th. The By Michael Madyda, Project Manager Metropolitan After itʹs arrival in October 1995, our 1947 Transportation Model 30 Burro crane CB3004 had sat unrestored and Authority hand‐picked inoperable. A couple of unsuccessful attempts had the Tonawanda Valley been made in the past to restore it. For those of you Pullman Co. observa‐ who remember, CB3004 came with a counterpart, tion car, the PRR Class CB3001, that was supposed to provide parts for the BNM‐70 Baggage/ restoration of CB3004. Several years ago, a decision Railway Post Office was made to scrap CB3001 when the yard was being car, the 1171 ACMU, cleaned up. Unfortunately, vital parts from CB3004 the NYC 2013 EMD that were removed, but not replaced, for its restoration FL‐9 diesel electric were lost or scrapped during that time. locomotive, and the CDOT 605 ALCO RS‐ A sign welcomes visitors. 3m diesel to be trans‐ Top photo: Carolyn Taylor ported and displayed Bottom photo: Bob Boothe at the event.
    [Show full text]
  • Acceso a La Estación Penn Station
    Acceso a la estación Penn Station Cuatro nuevas estaciones en East Bronx con servicio directo de Metro- North hacia la estación Penn Station, Westchester y Connecticut. Viajes más rápidos. Servicio expandido. El proyecto utilizará la actual línea Hell Gate de Amtrak para acceder a la estación Penn Station, lo que incrementará el Conexiones regionales. potencial de la infraestructura existente y a la vez minimizará el efecto en la comunidad circundante. También El servicio de Metro-North desde el Bronx, Westchester y dejará la línea Hell Gate en un buen estado de reparación Connecticut a la estación Penn Station y el lado oeste de y mejorará tanto la fiabilidad como la puntualidad para los Manhattan está a un paso de materializarse. El acceso a la pasajeros interurbanos. estación Penn Station respaldará la equidad, la conectividad regional y la fiabilidad al ofrecer una nueva opción de transporte público. Además de las nuevas estaciones, el proyecto convertirá el ferrocarril de 2 vías actual en un ferrocarril mayor de 4 vías con más de 19 millas de vías nuevas y rehabilitadas. El Con cuatro estaciones de ferrocarril nuevas en el East Bronx proyecto también incluye el reacondicionamiento de 4 accesibles para pasajeros según las disposiciones de la Ley puentes, la reconfiguración de la playa de New Rochelle de para Estadounidenses con Discapacidades y mejoras Metro-North, 4 enclavamientos nuevos y 1 enclavamiento significativas en la infraestructura ferroviaria, el acceso de reconfigurado, 5 subestaciones nuevas y 2 mejoradas, y Penn Station respaldará la economía local y atraerá el talento modernizaciones de la infraestructura de señalización, regional al aumentar la accesibilidad a barrios de pocos energía y comunicación.
    [Show full text]