This chapter provides an overview of the Environmental Consequences and benefits documented in Chapters 7.2 - 7.21. It also includes an overview of the effects and benefits identified in Chapter 5, Transportation, and Chapter 6, Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects, since the findings in these chapters also influence the analyses conducted for some of the resources presented in Chapter 7. Appendix EE, organized by resource, provides detailed information for the Preferred Alternative, by state and by county. Appendix AA, Mapping Atlas of the Preferred Alternative, provides a visual overview of where resources are located in relation to the Existing Northeast Corridor (NEC) + Hartford/Springfield Line and Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative focuses improvements on the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and incorporates several new segments that allow for increased through-put and travel-time savings throughout the NEC. The Preferred Alternative calls for enhanced service and electrification of the Existing Hartford/Springfield Line.1 Environmental impacts are associated with the proposed improvements to the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line as well identified new segments; however, impacts are greater in association with new segments. This Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Final EIS) presents a conservative assessment of potential environmental consequences because the analytical approach is based on conceptual engineering and a qualitative level of detail.
The definition of the No Action Alternative has not changed between the Tier 1 Draft EIS and Tier 1 Final EIS. Similarly, the approach to the analysis of the No Action Alternative has not changed. The No Action Alternative encompasses existing and planned service improvements as well modified and new infrastructure. Because the physical limits of the specific improvements that will be made under No Action Alternative are unknown, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) did not quantitatively assess the footprint-related effects of the No Action Alternative.
The FRA did develop a representational footprint for both the Existing NEC and Existing Hartford/Springfield Line, and uses that as a point of reference for potential physical impacts of the projects that will be implemented under the No Action Alternative. Note that quantities shown for the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line in the Tier 1 Final EIS differ from the quantities shown for the Existing NEC in the Tier 1 Draft EIS (see Chapter 2).
The FRA did quantify service-related effects of the No Action Alternative. For a definition of the No Action Alternative, refer to Chapter 4, Preferred Alternative, and Volume 2, Appendix B. For more detail on how the FRA evaluated the No Action Alternative, see Chapter 7, Introduction and Guide to Effects Assessment.
Volume 2, Chapter 7.1, defines the No Action Alternative as the following:
"The FRA defined a No Action Alternative that identifies improvements to highway, freight rail, transit, air, and maritime modes that will occur by 2040 regardless of NEC FUTURE. The No Action Alternative represents a "snapshot in time" of reasonably foreseeable future transportation conditions in the Study Area while avoiding being speculative, since there is uncertainty in economic conditions, available funding, and political support for transportation projects."
As discussed in Volume 2, Chapter 7.1, most of the projects and activities included as part of the No Action Alternative occur within the NEC right-of-way. Under the No Action Alternative, passenger rail service along the NEC operates and provides approximately the same level of service as provided today. As a result, "service-related" effects of the No Action Alternative on noise and vibration are unlikely. However, service-related effects on air quality could result due to increased congestion within the overall transportation network, caused by the lack of improvement in rail to absorb the growth in passengers."Footprint" effects on environmental resources under the No Action Alternative vary, depending on the scope of the project being implemented. Refer to Volume 2, Chapter 7.1, for a summary of potential effects associated with the No Action Alternative along the NEC.
The Existing Hartford/Springfield Line is an existing rail corridor with improvements currently occurring under the No Action Alternative as part of the CTrail Hartford Line.2 Improvements occurring along this line as part of the No Action Alternative will result in a range of environmental impacts to resources along the corridor.
Effects are likely to occur to various resources that exist within and adjacent to the Existing NEC and along the Existing Hartford/Springfield Line (see Chapter 7, Introduction, for an explanation of the approach to identifying effects associated with the No Action Alternative). Benefits resulting from the Preferred Alternative, such as increased mobility, accessibility, and connectivity will not occur under the No Action Alternative. Unmet capacity will require travelers to continue to rely on automobiles, air, and intercity bus for travel in the corridor as they do today. Under the No Action Alternative, transportation congestion will increase because of projected population growth and continued reliance on automobiles. As a result, the increased congestion will result in negative effects on energy consumption and air quality.
Preferred Alternative - Fast Facts
The Preferred Alternative achieves sufficient capacity, connectivity, and performance to meet future Northeast mobility needs for 2040 and beyond, while allowing for the adoption of advanced service concepts that will enhance the passenger rail experience. The Preferred Alternative also incorporates new segments along with improving the NEC that together expand capacity to grow the role of rail and have the greatest potential for operational benefit. Unlike the Action Alternatives presented and evaluated in the Tier 1 Draft EIS, the Preferred Alternative proposes a service that splits in New Haven, CT, with end points in Springfield and Boston, MA.
The Preferred Alternative results in both "service-related" and "footprint" effects on the built and natural environment. The Preferred Alternative representative routes and construction characteristics are the basis for the analysis in the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 EIS. They illustrate necessary improvements to achieve the Preferred Alternative service and performance objectives. Appendix AA, Mapping Atlas of the Preferred Alternative, illustrates the representative routes (part 1) and construction characteristics (part 2) used to analyze the Preferred Alternative.
Service effects result from changes in the existing rail service, such as increased frequencies or speeds. Footprint effects result from expanding existing infrastructure or providing new infrastructure to support the proposed rail service. As stated in Chapter 5, Transportation, service provided by the implementation of the Preferred Alternative would dramatically change rail transportation in the Northeast by providing up to 5 times as much Intercity rail service, significantly reducing trip times, increasing frequency of Regional trains, and ultimately providing a more reliable service. Additionally, the implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in changes to economic activity throughout the Study Area (see Chapter 6, Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects). While some of these changes would be more immediate, others would occur over a period of time. Increased frequencies in train service and more direct rail connections expand the existing labor market. An expanded range of service and price options results in the ability for travelers to weigh the effects of travel costs versus time and provides more flexibility. The expansion of rail services under the Preferred Alternative results in more immediate construction jobs as well as additional hiring to operate and maintain the service.
Changes in service levels and speeds also result in changes in noise and vibration, air quality, and energy consumption. All counties along the Representative Route of the Preferred Alternative would have moderate to severe noise impacts; fewer counties would be affected by vibration. However, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in net benefits to air quality within the Study Area and a net total decrease in greenhouse gases (GHG). Service changes result in an overall decrease in energy use.
Table 7.1-1 summarizes effects of the Preferred Alternative presented in Chapter 7. For comparison, effects to resources associated with the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line are provided. As described in Chapter 7, Introduction, effects for the Preferred Alternative are inclusive of those identified for the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line.
Resource (Chapter #) | Existing NEC + Hartford / Springfield Line | Preferred Alternative |
---|---|---|
Land Cover (7.2) | ||
Land Cover - Potential Conversion - Developed (acres) | 7,280 | 9,855 |
Land Cover - Potential Conversion - Undeveloped (acres) | 1,800 | 2,710 |
Land Cover - Potential Acquisitions - Developed (Existing NEC removed from Preferred Alt) (acres)* | - | 2,535 |
Land Cover - Potential Acquisitions - Undeveloped (Existing NEC removed from Preferred Alt) (acres)* | - | 1,035 |
Agricultural Lands (Prime Farmland and Timberlands) (7.3) | ||
Prime Farmland (acres) | 315 | 555 |
Prime Timberland (acres) | 1,570 | 2,425 |
Parklands and Wild & Scenic Rivers (7.4 & 7.16) | ||
Parklands (total # of resources) | 111 | 128 |
Section 6(f) parks (total # of resources) | 21 | 24 |
Wild and Scenic Rivers (# of crossings) | 1 | 1 |
Hydrologic Resources (7.5) | ||
Wetlands (Total freshwater and saltwater acres) | 500 | 835 |
Floodplains (acres) | 1,345 | 1,920 |
Coastal Zone (route miles) | 198 | 279 |
Navigable Waterways crossed | 20 | 22 |
Ecological Resources (7.6) | ||
Ecologically Sensitive Habitat - Terrestrial and Aquatic (acres) | 1,355 | 2,350 |
Threatened and Endangered (# of species) | 17 | 18 |
Essential Fish Habitat (# of species) | 7 | 17 |
Essential Fish Habitat (# of crossings) | 49 | 54 |
Geologic Resources (7.7) | ||
Sole Source Aquifers (presence # of counties) | 11 | 13 |
Karst Terrain (presence # of counties) | 0 | 1 |
Naturally occurring Asbestos (presence # of counties) | 0 | 0 |
Landslide Susceptibility (presence # of counties) | 9 | 11 |
Note: Effects shown represent the areas/number
of a given resource identified within the Representative Route unless
otherwise noted to be associated with the Affected Environment. Values
have been rounded for area calculations.
* Acquisitions could result
in future displacements; those displacements will be quantified only
as part of Tier 2 project studies.
Resource (Chapter #) | Existing NEC + Hartford / Springfield Line | Preferred Alternative |
---|---|---|
Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material (7.8) | ||
National Priority List Superfund (# sites) | 0 | 0 |
Brownfields (# sites) | 26 | 46 |
RCRA CoRRACTS (# sites) | 1 | 1 |
RCRA Info (# sites) | 9 | 16 |
RCRA TSDF (# sites) | 3 | 3 |
State-listed Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Databases (# sites) | 60 | 91 |
Cultural Resources and Historic Properties (7.9 & 7.16) | ||
National Historic Landmarks (#) | 0 | 5 |
National Register of Historic Properties (#)** | 51 | 142 |
Visual and Aesthetic Resources (7.10) |
|
|
Environmental Justice (7.11) | ||
Total Population (Affected Environment) | 4,869,980 | 4,995,997 |
Minority Population (Affected Environment) | 2,610,355 | 2,658,763 |
Low-Income Population (Affected Environment) | 804,868 | 801,721 |
Percentage Minority (Affected Environment) | 54% | 53% |
Percentage Low Income (Affected Environment) | 17% | 17% |
Environmental Justice Populations (# EJ Tracts) | 731 | 744 |
Note: Effects shown represent the areas/number
of a given resource identified within the Representative Route unless
otherwise noted to be associated with the Affected Environment. Values
have been rounded for area calculations.
RCRA CoRRACTS = Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Actions; RCRA Info = Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Information Systems; RCRA TSDF = Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
**The FRA also considered National Register - eligible (NRE) rail-related
properties in the NEC as designated by the National Park Service in
prior environmental studies. The NRE properties identified are included
in the total count for the National Register of Historic Properties.
Resource (Chapter #) | Existing NEC + Hartford / Springfield Line | Preferred Alternative |
---|---|---|
Noise and Vibration (7.12) |
|
|
Air Quality (7.13) |
|
|
Energy (7.14) |
|
|
Climate Change - Counties with largest number of acres at risk by flooding type (current conditions) (7.15) | ||
Sea level rise flooding |
|
|
Storm surge flooding |
|
|
Riverine flooding |
|
|
Note: Effects shown represent the areas/number of a given resource identified within the Representative Route unless otherwise noted to be associated with the Affected Environment. Values have been rounded for area calculations.
Resource (Chapter #) | Existing NEC + Hartford / Springfield Line | Preferred Alternative |
---|---|---|
Electromagnetic Fields/Electromagnetic Interference (7.17) | NA |
|
Safety (7.18) | Current conditions continue. | Results in safer trip making due to shift from highways to rail. |
Public Health (7.19) | NA | Potential risks to public health include:
|
Cumulative Effects (7.20) | Actions included in the No Action Alternative likely contribute to cumulative effects. | Contributes to cumulative effects on resources within the Study Area. |
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment to Resources (7.21) | N/A | Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in effects on resources that are considered scarce and rare, and once used, are irretrievable. |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
Note:
Effects shown represent the areas/number of a given resource identified
within the Representative Route unless otherwise noted to be associated
with the Affected Environment. Values have been rounded for area calculations.
The Preferred Alternative has the potential to contribute to indirect and cumulative effects. Induced growth is a likely outcome of implementing the Preferred Alternative. People will have greater options of connecting places of employment to their residences. This may result in increased development densities around stations and people choosing to live further out and driving to nearby stations. Expansion of infrastructure in these areas could result in environmental impacts to resources evaluated. Furthermore, effects identified could contribute cumulatively to effects on like resources by other projects within the Study Area.
New or Upgraded Segments
Effects are greater where new or upgraded segments are proposed. The FRA has determined the necessity for new segments in particular geographic sections of the NEC in order to meet the Purpose and Need, and has identified a representative route for each potential new segment. The FRA or another federal agency providing funding for a particular project will evaluate specific locations for new segments as part of the Tier 2 project studies, prior to making any decision regarding new segment locations.
The following provides a description of the environmental effects associated with each proposed new or upgraded segment. In this summary, information is primarily given on the amount of impact; for more discussion on the type of impact that would occur in the affected areas, please see the relevant Chapter 7 resource discussion. The discussion is divided by those elements that occur south of New York City (between Washington, D.C., and the Hudson County, NJ/New York City, NY line) and those that occur north of New York City (between the Hudson County, NJ/New York City, NY, line to Springfield, MA, and to Boston, MA).
Elements South of New York City
Elements North of New York
Station effects would be localized, with the greatest potential effects occurring at new station locations. Table 7.1-2 summarizes the effects for new stations by county. Impacts and areas of concern related to stations are similar to those documented for the Representative Route impacts for the Preferred Alternative. Station locations are approximate and would be refined and modified as part of subsequent environmental analysis. Station effects could be expected to the following resources:
State | County | Station ID | Station Type | Station Name | Land Conversions | Prime Farmland | Prime Timberland | Parklands | Hydrologic/Water Resources | Ecologically Sensitive Habitat | Essential Fish Habitat | Threatened and Endangered Species | Geologic Resources | Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Sites | Cultural Resources | Climate Change Inundation Effects Mid-Century |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MD | Anne Arundel | 5 | Modified | Odenton | X | X | X | |||||||||
Baltimore City | 13 | New | Bayview | X | X | X | ||||||||||
Cecil | 23 | New | Elkton | X | X | X | ||||||||||
DE | New Castle | 26 | New | Newport | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
28 | Edgemoor | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
PA | Delaware | 34 | New | Baldwin | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
44 | Philadelphia Segments | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
NJ | Mercer | 61 | Modified | Princeton Junction | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
Middlesex | 62 | New | North Brunswick | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
64 | Modified | New Brunswick | X | X | X | |||||||||||
68 | New | Metropark H.S. | X | X | X | |||||||||||
Hudson | 76 | Modified | Secaucus | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
NY | Bronx | 78 | New | Hunts Point | X | |||||||||||
79 | Parkchester | X | ||||||||||||||
80 | Morris Park | X | ||||||||||||||
81 | Co-op City | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
Westchester | 87 | New | Cross-Westchester | X |
State | County | Station ID | Station Type | Station Name | Land Conversions | Prime Farmland | Prime Timberland | Parklands | Hydrologic/Water Resources | Ecologically Sensitive Habitat | Essential Fish Habitat | Threatened and Endangered Species | Geologic Resources | Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Sites | Cultural Resources | Climate Change Inundation Effects Mid-Century | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | Fairfield | 94 | New | Stamford H.S. | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
101 | Modified | Greens Farms | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
107 | New | Barnum | X | ||||||||||||||||
New Haven | 189 | New | Orange | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
New London | 124 | New | Mystic/New London H.S. | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
RI | Kent | 127 | Modified | TF Green | X | X | |||||||||||||
Providence | 130 | New | Pawtucket | X | |||||||||||||||
Hartford / Springfield Line | |||||||||||||||||||
CT | New Haven | 157 | New | North Haven | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
Hartford | 161 | New | Newington | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
186 | West Hartford | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
163 | Modified | Hartford | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
187 | New | Enfield | X | X | X | X | X |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
Notes:
Land conversions for new stations are inclusive of acquisitions and
possible displacements since the FRA assumed that all new station would
require acquisitions. There are no wild and scenic rivers or other water
resources identified near new stations. EJ populations were identified
on a county level and not affiliated with individual station effects.
X = Potential for Effects
Blank Cell = No effects identified for
subject resource for listed station for specified alternative.
Noise
and vibration impacts were not assessed for individual stations for
the Tier 1 EIS.
1 For the purposes of this assessment, the No Action Alternative includes the existing Northeast Corridor (NEC) and Hartford/Springfield Line. Service and improvements on the Hartford/Springfield Line are integral to the Preferred Alternative service plans for the NEC, so it was necessary to provide a baseline or No Action condition for that line for comparison purposes. In the Tier 1 Draft EIS, the Hartford/Springfield Line was included as a connecting corridor, or in the case of Alternative 2, a parallel corridor for service between New Haven and Hartford, CT.
2 Additional information regarding the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Program can be found in the FRA's Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation for the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield High-Speed Intercity Rail Program (2012). http://www.nhhsrail.com/
The information posted on this website includes hypertext links or pointers to information created and maintained by other public and/or private organizations. The FRA provides these links and pointers solely for information and convenience. When users select a link to an outside website, they are leaving the NEC FUTURE website and are subject to the privacy and security policies of the owners/sponsors of the outside website. The FRA does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information contained on a linked website, or endorse the organizations sponsoring linked websites, the views they express, or the products/services they offer. The FRA cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked websites and is not responsible for transmissions users receive from linked websites.