Alternative 1: Maintain

Alternative 1 maintained the role of rail as it is today, increasing service to keep pace with growth in population and employment. Alternative 1 included new rail services and commensurate investment in the NEC to expand capacity, add tracks, and relieve key chokepoints. Alternative 1 brought the existing NEC to a state of good repair, but did not expand the role of rail beyond its current role in the broader transportation system within the NEC.

Alternative 2: Grow

Alternative 2 grew the role of rail, with service that accommodates a larger proportion of Northeast travelers as population and employment grow. Alternative 2 maximized capacity of the existing NEC, eliminated most train operations conflicts, provided additional capacity for improved performance, connected new markets, and removed speed restrictions where practical and safe. Alternative 2 brought the existing NEC to a state of good repair.

Alternative 3: Transform

Alternative 3 transformed the role of rail, positioning it as a dominant mode for Intercity travelers and commuters across the NEC. Alternative 3 included a continuous second spine operating between Washington, D.C., and Boston. The second spine was separate from the existing NEC, but connected to and integrated with services offered on the existing NEC at designated Major Hub and Hub stations. The second spine supported speeds up to 220 mph between major NEC markets and provided additional capacity for Intercity and Regional rail services throughout the Study Area. Alternative 3 also included service and infrastructure improvements on the existing NEC to increase capacity, eliminate chokepoints, and bring the existing NEC to a state of good repair. Four route options were under consideration for the northern portion of the second spine, as shown on the map.

*numbers vary depending on the route option