Empire Corridor Tier 1 EIS Draft Released

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jerichowhiskey

Service Attendant
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
161
Location
New York
Surprised this has not been posted yet. You can find details of the alternatives NYDOT is considering in this PDF with the full report available at their website. A schedule for public hearings across NY is available and a contact option as well to give comments if you cannot make it to a meeting.



Basic rundown, the alternatives they are offering are to do nothing, option 90A which would lead to track improvements to existing CSX track and add some dedicated passenger tracks for 90MPH service, and options 90B and 110 which would install a dedicated third passenger track with a fourth track at various locations. The 125 MPH option which is to create an entire new right of way with two dedicated electrified tracks is considered too expensive and wouldn't be available until 2035 at the earliest. In terms of cost recovery, 110 option was considered the best and is what the Empire State Passengers Association is supporting.

Times Union

Most of the attention is focused on the corridor west of the Capital Region, where freight traffic is far heavier and Amtrak trains are limited to speeds of 79 mph or less.

The costliest of the remaining four alternatives is a plan that would boost top speeds to 125 mph, construct a new rail line between the Capital Region and Buffalo, and carry a price tag of $14.71 billion.

None of this will happen quickly. Construction on the 125 mph alternative would take until 2035 to complete.

Two alternatives would have trains travel at top speeds of 90 mph, 11 mph faster than the current top speed, and a fourth alternative would boost top speeds to 110 mph.

The study itself is somewhat dated. There are references to air service between Albany and LaGuardia and Kennedy airports in New York City, something that hasn't existed in more than a year, but no reference to the oil trains that are boosting freight movements on area rail lines.

A public hearing will be held March 4 at the Albany Nanotech complex, 257 Fuller Road in Albany. An open house runs from 4 to 8 p.m., with the public hearing from 6 to 8 p.m.

Other hearings will be held March 5 in Syracuse, March 6 in Buffalo, March 7 in Rochester, March 11 in Utica and March 12 in Poughkeepsie.

The Empire State Passengers Association, a rail advocacy group that has lobbied for better service, favors the 110 mph alternative, Bruce Becker, its president, said Wednesday.

The study projects that the 110 mph alternative would boost ridership while producing the highest recovery of costs through ticket sales, 86 percent compared with 75 percent now.

The 110 mph alternative also would improve freight capacity by removing passenger traffic from the freight line. CSX Transportation, which owns much of the Empire Corridor trackage, said the line between Buffalo and Albany is the busiest on its 21-state, 23,000-mile route network.

The freight railroad said Wednesday that it is reviewing the draft environmental impact statement.

"In reviewing the document, CSX will look to ensure that any proposals for passenger service along the route do not compromise safety and allow the company to continue to meet the current and future demands of businesses and industries – including thousands of commercial enterprises in New York," CSX said. "Other factors that will be important are appropriate compensation for the use or acquisition of CSX's private property, and assurances that the company will not be required to subsidize passenger service or assume additional liability." CSX said it "looks forward to offering comments in the near future" on the document.

The 110 mph alternative calls for construction of a dedicated third track over the 273 miles from the Capital Region to Buffalo, as well as a fourth passenger track at six locations, totaling 59 miles in length. Total cost of improvements would be $6.25 billion.

"The 110 mph alternative would require new added capacity on the current right of way," Becker said. "That would free up existing capacity on CSX tracks."

Whether it would still be fast enough to draw a larger share of the Buffalo - New York City travel market isn't clear. Currently, just 3 percent of travelers between the two cities take the train, while 50 percent fly, 42 percent take the bus, and 5 percent drive.

In the Capital Region, the train captures 11 percent of the travel market to New York City, less than the 14 percent share who take the bus, and well below the 71 percent who drive. Another 4 percent were listed as flying, although Albany currently only has service to Newark.

After public comments are gathered and an alternative is chosen, federal rail regulators must sign off on the project and another study will more closely examine the engineering, land acquisition and mitigation that must be done.

Even the less ambitious alternatives likely would take a least until 2025 to complete.
 
Yep. I was involved in the discussions at ESPA of which I am a member. We came to the conclusion that in balance 110mph option gives the max bang for the buck at present, striking the right balance between what is realizable and the ideal perfection. It also met one of the core goals we had identified, that of getting an average speed greater than 60mph.

Additionally there are opportunities to incrementally add 125mph on new alignment specially at the west end. The 125 alignment at the east end would be a big single jump project though.
 
Yeah, I think the 110 MPH alternative is probably the best one of those on the table. To be fair, I'm not quite sure why 160 wasn't advanced alongside 125, considering that both seem to have more or less the same base requirements, but with enough stops having to be skipped I can see why both became undesirable.

One thing that is incidentally exciting is what the 110 alternative would do for the LSL (assuming that the LSL wouldn't be put on the express tracks for 125). Cutting 1:44 should be enough to get the EB LSL into NYP before rush hour without moving the schedule that much west of BUF...it would cut the effective NYP-CHI time from 19:05 to 17:20 (remember, EB the schedule has a massive pad built in).

And yes, I know this isn't the primary goal, but this incidental benefit is likely to have consequences worth considering for Amtrak as a whole. It's also worth noting that, based on what I've seen in the Monthly Reports, this is likely to put Empire West in the black. Most of that remaining subsidy can be "found" in Empire South (which is burdened with lower PPR and whatnot).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What can we do to back this? I'm not sure I'm willing to drive to Syracuse on March 5, but would it help to show up?
 
I agree that the 110 mph alternative provides a significant improvement and is the best tradeoff given that there won't be enough political support for the higher cost alternatives. Although $6.25 billion is going to be a difficult sell unless there are federal funding grants to pick up part of the tab. OTOH, $6.25B is about 6/10ths of the (latest) cost of the East Side Access project so it is not a budget buster price tag for the state of NY. However, I can see politics and lukewarm support from the Cuomo administration leading to the 90A alternative being selected initially which is still an improvement in daily trips and trip time.

Yeah, I think the 110 MPH alternative is probably the best one of those on the table. To be fair, I'm not quite sure why 160 wasn't advanced alongside 125, considering that both seem to have more or less the same base requirements, but with enough stops having to be skipped I can see why both became undesirable.

One thing that is incidentally exciting is what the 110 alternative would do for the LSL (assuming that the LSL wouldn't be put on the express tracks for 125). Cutting 1:44 should be enough to get the EB LSL into NYP before rush hour without moving the schedule that much west of BUF...it would cut the effective NYP-CHI time from 19:05 to 17:20 (remember, EB the schedule has a massive pad built in).
The 1:44 trip time reduction for the 110 mph alternative is from NYP to Niagara Falls. The NYP to Buffalo reduction would be less. Even so, the LSL would greatly benefit in OTP reliability and schedule flexibility with either the 90A or 110 alternatives. Especially if MI pursues the South of the Lake route upgrades in IL and IN for the Michigan services corridors.
 
I am told that NYSDOT is on board with the 110 option. So I think the fear of what Cuomo administration might do may be misplaced. But as usual with these things, until the ROD on the LPA is signed off one never know for sure.
 
Remember when looking at these studies that to include an analysis of "do nothing" is a requirement.
True, though I've found that the usual handling of that is to basically say "This is here because we have to put it, it doesn't do squat for what we need, and did we mention that it's only been advanced because we're required to have it?"
 
OK, trying again without messing up the quotes (mods can delete the previous one...)

The 1:44 trip time reduction for the 110 mph alternative is from NYP to Niagara Falls. The NYP to Buffalo reduction would be less.
Not significantly. Every analysis so far says you can't do a damn thing to improve Buffalo - Niagara Falls without a great deal of new ROW. (The current routing is stupid and involves sharp curves taken to head away from your destination -- a legacy of the original rail routings having expressways dumped on top of them.)
If you look at the schematic track charts in the EIS, they propose *no improvements* west of Buffalo. (Well, OK, a track extends maybe a mile west of Buffalo Exchange.)

The NYP to Buffalo trip time reduction would be 1:44. The NYP to *Syracuse* trip time reduction would be less, for example.
 
I am told that NYSDOT is on board with the 110 option. So I think the fear of what Cuomo administration might do may be misplaced. But as usual with these things, until the ROD on the LPA is signed off one never know for sure.
That would be awesome. The 110 option is supposed to have the lowest state operating support requirement, which should sway some people in the state government.
 
If you cannot make it to a meeting, you can certainly add your voice by submitting a comment to [email protected] or through their website by March 24th.

It is what I did as I likely cannot go up to the nearest one in Poughkeepsie.
Already did. I said that I backed the 110 option. I *also* said I believed they'd underestimated the ridership on the higher-speed options, due to failing to count people driving to the stations from outside the metropolitan areas.

For instance, I've repeatedly met people at the Syracuse station driving from or to Watertown -- and in one case, Kingston, Ontario -- when I was there, having driven from Ithaca. The overly-conservative ridership models in the report assume nobody will do either.
 
I also told them to leave passive provision for future electrification. (One day you're gonna do it. If you don't have to replace every single bridge, it helps.)
 
The 1:44 trip time reduction for the 110 mph alternative is from NYP to Niagara Falls. The NYP to Buffalo reduction would be less.
Not significantly. Every analysis so far says you can't do a damn thing to improve Buffalo - Niagara Falls without a great deal of new ROW. (The current routing is stupid and involves sharp curves taken to head away from your destination -- a legacy of the original rail routings having expressways dumped on top of them.)
If you look at the schematic track charts in the EIS, they propose *no improvements* west of Buffalo. (Well, OK, a track extends maybe a mile west of Buffalo Exchange.)

The NYP to Buffalo trip time reduction would be 1:44. The NYP to *Syracuse* trip time reduction would be less, for example.
Appendix D of the draft EIS is the Rail Network Operations Simulation section. It has 2 tables (D-2, D-3) showing the nominal trip times from NYP and Albany to the western corridor stops for each alternative. Some of the trip time reduction for the 110 mph alternative is indeed between Buffalo Depew and Niagara Falls. It is a $6 billion upgrade plan after all.

In all 3 alternatives, NYP to Albany is reduced to 2:13, accounting for 17 minutes of trip time reduction.

Starting from Albany, trip times for the different alternatives are:

Base: Rochester 3:51, Buffalo Depew 4:55; Niagara Falls 6:26

90A : Rochester 3:38, Buffalo Depew 4:35; Niagara Falls 5:48

110 : Rochester 3:11, Buffalo Depew 4:00; Niagara Falls 4:52

If the 110 mph alternative were built, the total nominal NYP-BUF trip time reduction is 1 hour and 11 minutes. With upgraded stations with long high level platforms and improved reliability, the westbound LSL could also cut some of its excess padding in the schedule. Which it may be able to do in a few years when the currently funded projects on the corridor are completed.

BTW, it appears that Appendix A has track maps for each of the alternatives.
 
Looking at the 110 map, it seems Buffalo and Rochester will be a two step process where they have to build new freight tracks first so the dedicated passenger track can be built on the existing alignment. Could be the biggest hurdle in this upgrade.
 
Appendix D of the draft EIS is the Rail Network Operations Simulation section. It has 2 tables (D-2, D-3) showing the nominal trip times from NYP and Albany to the western corridor stops for each alternative. Some of the trip time reduction for the 110 mph alternative is indeed between Buffalo Depew and Niagara Falls.
I think that's all, or almost all, between Buffalo-Depew and Buffalo-Exchange.

BTW, it appears that Appendix A has track maps for each of the alternatives.
I read through Appendix A. There aren't any upgrades for Buffalo Exchange-Niagara in the track maps, making it unlikely that they are going to get significant improvements. (I suppose they could do stuff which wouldn't appear on the track maps like grade crossing improvements, signalling upgrades, upgrading track maintenance to a higher standard.)
 
Looking at the 110 map, it seems Buffalo and Rochester will be a two step process where they have to build new freight tracks first so the dedicated passenger track can be built on the existing alignment. Could be the biggest hurdle in this upgrade.
Not as much as it appears. Rochester is getting its dedicated passenger tracks as part of the current (already-funded) reconstruction of the station, and something similar is happening at Syracuse.
 
There is something funny about the way the maps are presented in three alternatives. There is trackwork done in the "lower" alternatives (90A) between Niagara Falls and Buffalo Exchange which isn't done in the 110 alternative. I've been assuming that the track charts mean what they say and are not "cumulative" in some bizarre manner. It is possible that they are written in some strange "cumulative" manner, which they certainly shouldn't be.

If you look at the speed profiles for the alternatives, you see little or no improvement from Buffalo-Exchange to Niagara Falls, which stays at 60 mph.

Anyway, there's substantial time reductions (several minutes) between Buffalo-Exchange and Buffalo-Depew in all the alternatives, and that will benefit the LSL just as much as improvements east of Depew; six out of the seven miles from Exchange to Depew are shared by the LSL, and they're currently full of speed restrictions and yard movements.
 
Looking at the 110 map, it seems Buffalo and Rochester will be a two step process where they have to build new freight tracks first so the dedicated passenger track can be built on the existing alignment. Could be the biggest hurdle in this upgrade.
Not as much as it appears. Rochester is getting its dedicated passenger tracks as part of the current (already-funded) reconstruction of the station, and something similar is happening at Syracuse.
Yes. Syracuse has a funded fourth track (platform track).
 
With upgraded stations with long high level platforms and improved reliability, the westbound LSL could also cut some of its excess padding in the schedule. Which it may be able to do in a few years when the currently funded projects on the corridor are completed.
FWIW, more dwell time is going to need to be added at Syracuse until platform lengthening is done (which is not funded, though it looks like it would be part of the project if "option 110" is chosen).

Full-length high-level platforms at Rochester and Schenectady should reduce dwell time.

But the biggest source of padding is probably the single-track section from Schenectady to Albany; the double-tracking, which is funded and under construction, should allow for westbound trains to wait for a slot on CSX at the Schenectady station (much closer to the junction at Hoffmans than Albany-Rennselear), and should allow eastbounds to get off CSX promptly regardless of where the westbounds are.

I'm still trying to puzzle out what's going on with the Niagara Falls-Buffalo Exchange time estimates. It seems to me that there's something hinky, where there are speed improvements over the Base Alternative which are assumed to be done for all the other alternatives but not listed. (Perhaps raising the speed of the Niagara Falls station approach trackage from 20 mph to 60 mph? There is a mention of the extremely slow speed of the last few miles before the new Niagara Falls station.)
 
Just because there's not any new track being added doesn't mean the track isn't being improved...and my guess is that they might be able to somehow upgrade the Buffalo-Niagara Falls tracks a bit. The other possibility is that you're seeing some padding removed there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top