New York is developing plans to strengthen our world-class rail sys-tem by providing residents, businesses and travelers with high-speed passenger rail within the Empire Corridor. This service will give the state a strategic advantage in creating jobs, protecting our environment

and stimulating economic growth. Travelers and businesses will be attracted by fast, frequent, reliable and comfortable passenger rail service. Adding to the appeal are anticipated improvements in

on-time performance and reliability resulting from investments in this 463-mile rail corridor between New York City and Niagara Falls.

With help from the public and key stakeholders, the NYSDOT project team has analyzed what it would take to make the train trip between NYC and Niagara Falls take less time and what it would cost to speed up the travel. The project team also figured out how full the trains would be, how many new trains could be added, and what all those benefits would give the public and at what cost.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project

In this issueAlternatives Development, P.1

Alternatives Being Evaluated, P.2

Initial Results of the Alternatives Analysis, P.3

Status of the Tier 1 DEIS, P.4

Alternatives Development

The project team has been busy analyz-ing a range of alternatives for introduc-ing high speed passenger rail service on the Empire Corridor. The analysis of the range of alternatives has resulted in a total of 5 alternatives being selected for advancement. The 5 alternatives selected for advancement include the Base alternative and 4 build alternatives which include the 90 mph series (90A & 90B) as well as the 110 mph and 125 mph alternatives. The 5 alternatives be-ing advanced are outlined below:

• Base Alternative (No Build)

• 90 mph (A)

• 90 mph (B)

• 110 mph

• 125 mph

The selection of the 4 build alternatives for advancement is based on evaluation criteria that compares the elements of each alternative against the project’s purpose and need and desired goals and objectives of the project. These elements include operational improve-ments such as increased service reliability, frequency and travel time as well as infrastructure improvements, ridership and estimated capital costs.

Strengthening New York’s World-Class Rail System.

I s s u e 0 3

Schedule:

2

Travel Speeds

Compare

Ridership

Costs

Trips per Day

Trip Time

Reliability

De�nitions

Travel Time

Frequency

Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Home

Alternatives Summary

x

79 MPH 90 MPH 110 MPH 125 MPH 160 MPH 220 MPH

ExistingTrack

Existing& New Track

NewCorridorFacilities

BaseAlternative

(BA)

79A

79B

79C

90A

90B 110

125 160 220

Emerging HSR Regional HSR Core Express HSR

Track Class

Public HearingsSpring 2012

Distribute Draft EISSpring 2012

EPAC Briefing on Draft EIS

Winter 2012

Complete Draft EISOngoing

All the alternatives that are being evaluated by the project team are summarized in the table to the right.

These activities – which take place as part of a federally required Tier 1 Environmental Impact State-ment or EIS – make good business sense. The EIS, when completed in 2012, will document the state’s research, public input, technical analysis and decision making so that residents understand how high-speed rail decisions were reached. In the process, the docu-ment will become a strategic plan for delivering reliable and environ-mentally sustainable high-speed rail service.

With completion of the project nearing, the project team wants to share its information and analysis with New Yorkers. Interested mem-bers of the public and stakeholder groups are encouraged to visit the project website which is in the process of being updated with the latest project information. The project website provides new opportunities for learning about - and commenting on – the project’s progress to date. Please visit the website on a regular basis to examine details and tell us what you think. We have more work to do. Help us understand your vision for the future of high speed rail in New York State.

The graphic illustrates the alternatives evaluation process.

Alternatives Being EvaluatedThe Base (no build) alternative includes currently planned improvements in the Empire Corridor. These improvements would occur, regardless of the results of the Tier 1 EIS and are used as a baseline, or comparison alternative, to the other alternatives. A few examples of these projects include the following: New Intermodal Transportation Center in Niagara Falls, ADA improvements at the Buffalo-Depew Sta-tion, station improvements at Schenectady and track, signal and grade crossing improvements throughout the corridor. Nine initial build alternatives, oper-ating at six different maximum authorized speeds (MAS) including 79, 90, 110, 125, 160 and 220 miles per hour (mph), were developed. While the speeds may seem strange, they correlate to changes and improvements that would be required to meet Federal Railroad Administration track standards.

• “79 mph Series” – Represents current limit on CSX Empire Corridor West based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations and existing signal system.

3

• “90 mph Series” – Would be the next step up in track standards (also requires an advanced train control system).

• 110 mph – Another step up in track standards (current top speed along dedicated track between Hudson-Albany/Rensselaer and Schenectady).

• 125 mph – The first speed threshold for electrified operation and the performance benefits achieved through electrically-powered trains.

• 160 mph – Practical upper limit of electrical dynam-ic tilt trains, such as the Amtrak Acela, that provide faster operating speeds on curves.

• 220 mph – Practical upper limit of world-class high speed rail operations such as those in France, Ger-many, Spain, Japan and China

The chart on the next page summarizes the alternative components at different speeds. Learn more about the comparison of cost, ridership, trip time, and more between the Base (no build) and other alternatives by visiting the project website.

How are the alternatives being evaluated?Currently, members of the project team are evaluating the pros and cons of the various alternatives and your comments are an impor-tant piece of this process. We have completed the initial environmental, operations and rider-ship analyses to answer some of your main questions for each of the alternatives, such as:

• How will it affect our communities?

• How will it affect our environment?

• How much will it cost?

• How long will the trip take?

• How many passengers will ride the train?

• How many trains will be in service?

• How fast will the train travel?

Initial Alternatives

Does it meet purpose and need?What does the public say?What does the initial analysis indicate?What do the “what if?” scenarios tell us?

Five alternatives identi�ed

What does the public say?What are the results of the detailed analyses?

Recommendation?

for detailed study

What is the status of the Tier 1 EIS Document? As part of the alternatives analysis discussed above, the project team is evalu-ating impacts to the natural and man-made environment. The results of this analysis will be documented in the Tier 1 EIS, which will be available for review early in 2012. The project team has documented the existing conditions-identifying the resources that could be impacted by the alternatives (acres of wetlands, locations of parks, or community facilities, etc.) along the corridor. The Tier 1 EIS focuses on a high level constraints analysis, iden-tifying potential areas for detailed evaluation in the Tier 2 analyses.

Keep in TouchVisit the Project Website: www.dot.ny.gov/Empire-Corridor

Send a Comment:EmpireCorridor@dot.state.ny.us

Mail a Written Comment:David ChanHigh Speed Rail Project ManagerNYSDOT50 Wolf RoadAlbany, NY 12232

Keep in touch with your local Empire Corridor Project Advisory Committee (EPAC) member. For a list of agencies on the EPAC, visit www.dot.ny.gov/Empire-Corridor/outreach

Performance Measures:

• Operations o Trip Time o On-Time Performance (OTP)

• Ridership

• Revenues

• Estimated Operation & Maintenance Costs

Summary of Alternatives Developed

4

Maximum Authorized Speed (MPH)

Base Alternative Projects

New Sidings

Station Improvements

New Service

New Dedicated Main Track

Grade Crossing Improvements

Advanced Train Control System

Additional Right-of-Way within Existing Corridor

New Corridor & Right-of-Way/ Electrified

Eliminate Grade Crossings

Alternative Components BA 79A 79B 79C 160 220

79 79 79 79 90 90 110 125 160 220

Elements of Each Alternative:

The four build alternatives with the most potential for meeting the project goals are now being further evaluated by their physical and operational characteristics, trip time, on-time performance, ridership, revenue, estimated capital cost, and operations and maintenance costs as well as potential for impacting the environment and public input.

• Operational Improvements o Maximum Authorized Speed

(MAS) o Frequency

• Physical Improvements o Track o Signals o Stations

• Equipment