New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Rail Program
Skip Navigation
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Glossary
  • En Español
Hartford Line Website—Service Launched June 2018
Plan Future Trips—Easy Access to Fares & Schedules »
  • Objectives & Scope
    • Overview
    • History
    • An Expanded Regional Intermodal Network
    • Funding
    • Infrastructure Upgrades
    • Schedule
    • Interactive Program Map
  • Benefits
  • Regional Vision
  • Information Center
    • Construction Updates
    • Archived Construction Updates
    • News Briefs
    • Archived News Briefs
    • Interactive Program Map
    • Media Kit
    • Library
    • Environmental Assessment
  • Stay Informed
    • Question or Comment?
    • Glossary
    • Related Links
    • FAQs
  • Media Gallery
  • Construction Updates
  • Archived Construction Updates
  • News Briefs
  • Archived News Briefs
  • Interactive Program Map
  • Media Kit
  • Library
  • Environmental Assessment
  • Overview
  • Notice of Availability
  • Cover and Signature
  • Executive Summary
  • 1.0 Introduction
  • 2.0 Purpose and Need
  • 3.0 Alternatives Evaluation
  • 4.0 Affected Environment
  • 5.0 Agency Coordination and
    Public Involvement
  • 6.0 List of Preparers
  • 7.0 Distribution List
  • 8.0 References
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables
  • Volume II Concept Design Drawings and Environmental Resource Graphics
  • Appendices

Get Email Updates Get Email Updates

Now is the time to get involved. Please sign up for project updates via email. (* required)

*
select
  • Berlin
  • East Hartford
  • East Long Meadow, MA
  • East Windsor
  • Enfield
  • Hamden
  • Hartford
  • Long Meadow, MA
  • Meriden
  • New Britain
  • New Haven
  • Newington
  • North Haven
  • South Windsor
  • Springfield, MA
  • Suffield
  • Wallingford
  • West Hartord
  • Windsor
  • Windsor Locks
If you do not see your City/Town from the current list, please type it in the list above.
  add me

Information Center

Environmental Assessment

3.0 Alternatives Evaluation PDF File Type

3.1 Introduction

This section describes the alternatives evaluated in this Tier 1 EA/EIE. Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, describe the No-Build and Build alternatives. The No-Build Alternative represents conditions in the future analysis year (2030) absent implementation of the proposed project, and serves as the future baseline against which anticipated effects of the Build Alternative are compared to identify any significant project-related impacts. The Build Alternative (the proposed project) would provide for enhanced passenger rail service in the NHHS rail corridor; related rail capacity and train speed improvements; and rail infrastructure improvements (NHHS Rail Program), which are necessary to support the service enhancement. Infrastructure improvements in two portions of the NHHS rail corridor (10.8 miles of rail line between the towns of Meriden and Newington and 5.8 miles between Hartford and Windsor) were previously evaluated by the FRA via CEs; therefore, the evaluations of those project elements, each of which has independent utility, are incorporated in this EA/EIE by reference (see Appendix 1, Phase 1 and 3A CEs).

3.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative assumes that passenger rail infrastructure in the NHHS rail corridor would be maintained in a state of good repair, potentially including any necessary safety and state-of-good repair improvements to the Connecticut River Bridge and the Hartford Viaduct. The No-Build Alternative also includes standard maintenance of up to 46 bridges and 115 culverts throughout the corridor that are not included in the proposed project (see Appendix 3, List of Bridges and Culverts). No restoration, improvement or new construction of passenger rail infrastructure would be undertaken in the corridor except as required by Amtrak to maintain safe rail operations. Therefore, the capacity of the rail line would remain sufficient to operate only today's level of service: six to eight round trips between New Haven and Springfield (with one continuing to Washington, D.C.) and one round trip between Washington, D.C., and St. Albans, Vermont. The service would be operated without the benefit of increased rail capacity, train speeds and intermodal connectivity.

3.3 Build Alternative

The proposed rail service enhancement in the NHHS rail corridor would provide for up to 25 daily round-trip trains (up to 50 one-way trips per day) by 2030 (see Appendix 2, Passenger Service Plan, for the proposed full-build service Plan). The proposed service plan would provide one-seat or cross-platform transfers on service from Washington, D.C., and New York to Springfield, Boston and the Knowledge Corridor, as well as bi-directional, 30-minute peak-hour service and hourly midday service in the NHHS rail corridor. Related operational improvements include an increase in the capacity of the line to accommodate additional trains, an increase in the maximum train speed to 110 miles per hour (mph), service to the new FTA-funded regional train stations and reduced scheduled travel times. These operational improvements, in turn, require rail infrastructure improvements. Therefore, Connecticut has proposed the NHHS Rail Program (Table 1-1), a program of capital projects to support enhanced passenger rail service in the NHHS rail corridor. The proposed project's infrastructure improvements in the NHHS rail corridor consist of:

  • Restoration of sections of second track;
  • Construction of new passing sidings;
  • Construction of a layover and light maintenance facility;
  • At-grade crossing upgrades;
  • Facility-specific bridge and culvert rehabilitations, replacements and removals;
  • Installation of new crossovers and signal upgrades;
  • Improvement or relocation of existing passenger rail platforms for Amtrak intercity service, as well as additional station parking and improved station access;
  • Improvements to platforms, track configuration and sidings in the Springfield Terminal area; and
  • Construction of future FTA-funded new regional rail stations.

Projected intercity ridership resulting from the proposed service enhancement in the NHHS rail corridor (see Appendix 2, Passenger Service Plan, for details of the proposed full-build service plan) was provided by Amtrak using its multimodal passenger travel demand forecasting model. The model considers intercity passenger travel by passenger vehicles, air, intercity bus, and premium (Acela) and regular (regional) rail modes. The study area covered by Amtrak's model includes the Northeast Corridor spine (Washington, D.C. - New York - Boston) and the corridors branching from the spine serving Virginia, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Albany, New York and Springfield, Massachusetts. Annual and daily boarding forecasts for 2030 are presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 - Forecast of Annual and Daily Intercity Boardings at Selected Stations

  Boardings (2030)
Station Annual Daily
New Haven 41,4630 1,450
Wallingford 60,732 212
Meriden 142,099 497
Berlin 62,052 217
Hartford 595,310 2,082
Windsor 30,972 108
Windsor Locks 38,166 133
Springfield Union 399,891 1,398

Source: Technical Paper for NHHS Line NEPA/CEPA Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation, CDM Smith, May 2011

CTDOT separately analyzed the ridership at the existing New Haven State Street Station and the four proposed new regional rail stations (see page 5, Technical Paper for NHHS Line NEPA/CEPA Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation, CDM Smith, May 2011). These stations would be served only by the Connecticut-operated regional trains and not by Amtrak. The daily ridership projection for these stations, which assumes up to 32 daily trains, is as follows:

  • NH State Street  319
  • North Haven       286
  • Newington          243
  • West Hartford    398
  • Enfield                  326

Based on the Amtrak and CTDOT ridership forecasts and assumptions about the modal split (auto [parking, kiss-n-ride], walk, bus, rail) for passengers arriving to and departing from the stations, future long-term  (2030) parking needs were estimated for each station, ranging from a need for 75 to 365 incremental parking spaces  (See Table 5-1, CDM Smith, May 2011). These estimates will be refined through further consultation with each town and/or municipal parking authority, based on the timing for the phase-in of new intercity and regional service. Provision of additional parking will be advanced, compatible with and, where appropriate, leveraging future downtown development plans. It is expected that additional parking will be phased in over several years as parking demand develops at each station. CTDOT will work with the FRA and each municipality to ensure that 2030 intercity parking demand is met at each station and that the design of incremental parking facilities ensures that the use of spaces funded with federal dollars is available for intercity rail passengers.

Double Tracking

The project includes replacement of approximately 35 miles of second track removed by Amtrak in the early 1980s. The track, consisting of s sub-ballast foundation, wood or concrete railroad ties and steel rail, will be restored on the previously engineered Amtrak track bed. It will be aligned to support speeds of up to 110 mph. There are five sections of new double track, including one (MP 31.1 to MP 35.1) where the second track physically still remains, but is no longer in service and will be removed and replaced:

  • North Haven to Meriden (MP 7.1 to MP 17)
  • Meriden-Newington (MP 20.3 to MP 31.1) (Phase 1 CE)
  • Hartford (MP 31.1 to MP 35.1)
  • Hartford to Windsor (MP 37.2 to MP 43.0) (Phase 3A CE)
  • Windsor to Enfield (MP 46.7 to MP 49.0 and MP 50.4 to MP 54.8)

Station Locations

The proposed project includes improvements to or relocations of seven existing Amtrak stations, operational improvements (crossovers and track connections) at Springfield Union Station and future construction of four new regional rail stations (Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1; see EA/EIE Volume II, Section 1.3 for Station Concept Plans). The State of Connecticut will be applying for FTA funding to add the four regional rail stations at North Haven, Newington, West Hartford and Enfield and to construct an additional platform at the existing New Haven State Street Station. No improvements are proposed for New Haven Union Station.

The proposed station improvements were developed through coordination with the municipalities along the NHHS rail corridor. The following factors were considered during meetings with local officials in the affected communities to determine optimum station locations and overall station layouts: maximum use of existing railroad property and infrastructure before consideration of adjacent properties; consistency with local development plans; intermodal access and connectivity, including local and regional bus services; adequate parking capacity; and environmental impacts, if any.

Existing Intercity Stations - The existing train stations at New Haven, Wallingford, Meriden, Berlin, Hartford, Windsor, Windsor Locks and Springfield will continue to provide Amtrak intercity rail service. As noted on Table 1-1, existing Amtrak stations will be enhanced with two 500-foot-long high-level platforms sufficient to accommodate an 8-car Amtrak train (unless otherwise noted below), covered by a canopy and connected by a pedestrian overpass, with elevator and stair access. Gauntlet tracks would be installed to permit wide freight loads through the station area (except at Hartford Union Station, where a drop-down high-level platform edge is planned). No new station buildings or improvements to existing station buildings are included in the proposed project. Additional parking demand has been estimated for each of the stations, and will be provided as demand develops. Each of these stations is described below, including any site-selection considerations.

New Haven Union Station: No improvements are planned at New Haven Union Station. It is anticipated that long-term (2030) additional parking demand (249 spaces) will result with enhanced service on the NHHS rail corridor.

Wallingford Station: The existing station location is not compatible with addition of high-level platforms, which would block local streets. Three alternative sites were considered for relocation of this station: 1) just north of the existing station on North Cherry Street; 2) further north near the intersection of Parker and North Colony Streets, with split parking accessed from both North Cherry and North Colony Streets); and 3) south of the existing station on Ward Street, adjacent to Judd Square. The North Cherry Street location was dismissed from further consideration because roadway traffic across downtown Wallingford would experience unreasonable delays when at-grade crossing gates are deployed while the train is stopped for passengers. Moving the station to Parker Street or Judd Square would reduce (but not eliminate) delays in the center of Wallingford related to gate closures. A station at the Judd Square site would be co-located with high-density housing and could incorporate more transit-oriented design elements, but would require a parking structure. The Parker Street site offers vehicle access to both platforms and would not need a parking structure. Both the Parker Street/North Colony Street and Ward Street/Judd Square locations are acceptable to the Town of Wallingford, which has requested that a final recommendation for the station site be deferred until after this EA/EIE public comment period. Therefore, both station-siting concepts are evaluated in this EA/EIE. Both sites would require some property acquisition and relocation. Additional future (2030) parking demand is estimated to be 210 spaces.

Meriden Station: High-level platforms and a parking structure would be added to support use of the existing station. From several conceptual station layouts presented to the City of Meriden, the preferred layout closes the Brook Street at-grade crossing and is consistent with the City's plans for TOD in the area. The improvements to the station area may require the demolition of the current Amtrak station building. The functions supported by that building would be re-established as part of the City's TOD plans on property immediately adjacent to the platforms. Future (2030) additional parking demand is estimated to be 300 spaces.

Berlin Station: High-level platforms would be constructed near the existing station building, which would be renovated by the Town of Berlin as part of a separate project. From several conceptual station layouts presented to the Town, the concept selected would be consistent with the Town's overall development plan for the area. Future (2030) additional parking demand at Berlin Station is estimated to be 232 spaces.

Hartford Union Station: At this existing station, the single 500-foot-long platform would be retrofitted or elevated to provide high-level boarding to trains. Associated modifications would be made, as appropriate, to the elevator and stairs. It is anticipated that future (2030) demand for an additional 342 parking spaces would result with enhanced service on the NHHS rail corridor.

Windsor Station: High-level platforms would be constructed near the existing station on Mechanic Street. Additional future (2030) parking demand is estimated to be 180 spaces; parking would be added on the east side of the tracks in a 3-story parking structure. Several conceptual station layouts were presented to the Town of Windsor Locks, the concept selected would be consistent with the Town's overall development plan for the area.

Windsor Locks Station: Two alternative station site options, each including improvements to support a bus shuttle connection to Bradley International Airport, were considered for this station: 1) the existing station location on South Main Street (Route 159) adjacent to the Connecticut River, near Interchange 42 of Interstate 91 and approximately 1 mile south of the Town's central business district; and 2) north of the town's central business district, as part of a proposed renovation and expansion of the Windsor Locks Commons development, and adjacent to an existing historic station structure. The Town of Windsor Locks has stated its preference for the second option, although at-grade crossing gate closures would delay roadway traffic when trains stop at the station. A final recommendation for the station site has been deferred until after the EA/EIE public comment period. Future (2030) additional parking demand at Windsor Locks Station is estimated to be 107 spaces.

Springfield Union Station: High-level platforms are proposed for one or more of the platforms served by passenger trains at the existing Amtrak Springfield Union Station. The configuration of the platforms and future access to the platforms by Amtrak trains operating on the Knowledge, Vermonter and Inland Route Corridors have not been finalized. Once this planning is completed, additional environmental review may be required through a project-level Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Future 2030 additional parking demand resulting from enhanced service on the NHHS rail corridor is estimated at 364 spaces.

New Stations

The State of Connecticut intends to apply for FTA funding to support construction of new regional rail stations along the NHHS rail corridor to supplement planned intercity service. The work would include a new platform at the existing New Haven State Street Station and new regional rail stations at North Haven, Newington, West Hartford, and Enfield. The new stations would include two 180-foot-long high-level platforms covered by a canopy and connected by a pedestrian overpass, with elevator and stair access, and parking for a total of 100 to 200 cars. Gauntlet tracks would be installed to permit wide freight loads through the station area. These potential stations are evaluated in this EA/EIE; however, no FRA funding would be used to construct them.

New Haven State Street Station: One additional 180-foot-long high-level platform, sufficient for safe access to and from the planned two-to-three car regional trains, would be provided on the westernmost track with new (or modified existing) overhead walkway, elevator and stairs at this existing station. The existing station entrance would be modified to accommodate the new walkway. The new platform would be offset approximately 100 feet to the north to avoid an existing railroad utility structure. There is no parking at this station, as it is intended to provide a pedestrian access alternative to downtown New Haven. Travelers requiring parking currently use nearby Union Station, which includes significant municipal parking facilities.

North Haven Station: This proposed new station would be located at the intersection of Divine and State streets in North Haven, easily accessible from the towns of Hamden1 and North Haven and from major roadways including nearby I-91 and adjacent Route 40. The site is also adjacent to an existing park-and-ride lot owned by CTDOT, which would be enlarged to provide long-term future (2030) parking of up to 288 parking spaces. Two sites were considered: 1) west of and adjacent to the existing park-and-ride lot; and 2) an unused industrial site on Divine Street immediately east of the tracks. The unused industrial site was preferred because it would not impact wetlands, as would the first option, and all parking spaces would be closer to the new station. The Town of North Haven supports the proposed station plan, which is consistent with the area's overall development plan.

Newington Station: This proposed new station would be located at the intersection of Willard and Francis avenues on the east side of the tracks at the site of the historical station location. The pedestrian overpass would connect to the proposed New Britain-Hartford Busway station located immediately west of the tracks. The station concept would be consistent with the area's overall development plan. Future (2030) parking demand at Newington Station is estimated to be 202 spaces.

West Hartford Station: This new station would be located at the intersection of Flatbush and Newfield avenues on the site of a commercial building on the east side of the tracks. The pedestrian overpass would connect to the proposed New Britain-Hartford Busway station located immediately west of the tracks. The station concept would be consistent with the area's overall development plan. Future (2030) parking demand at West Hartford Station is estimated to be 167 spaces.

Enfield Station: This new station would be located in the Village of Thompsonville at the intersection of Main and North River streets adjacent to an existing residential complex (Bigelow Commons) and a historic commercial building. The town's redevelopment plans for a vacant commercial building on the site are not part of the proposed project. Parking demand at this station is estimated to be 214 spaces. From options considered for station surface parking, the selected concept incorporates the town's plan for an intermodal center, would distribute parking to both sides of the tracks, use underutilized parking spaces at Bigelow Mills and avoid using the bluff overlooking the Connecticut River. This concept, which would preserve the riverfront area, would require acquisition of several properties and reconstruction of private parking and public streets. The selected concept would be consistent with the area's overall development plan.

Layover and Light Maintenance Facility

The proposed project includes construction of a train layover and light maintenance facility in the Springfield area. The facility would be required to support the planned 2030 level of service and used for overnight storage, cleaning, and light maintenance of three regional trains. Three sites were considered for the layover and maintenance activities (see Springfield Layover Site Alternative Analysis Technical Reports included as Appendix 4 and Site Visit Technical Report included as a reference document): Armory Street, east of Springfield Union Station, along a former rail branch line; passenger platform tracks at Springfield Union Station; and the Amtrak-owned "Sweeney Yard" site, southwest of Springfield Union Station, currently used by Amtrak for storage of train equipment and maintenance activities. The following factors were considered in the site selection process: constructability and any significant barriers to facility construction; ability to acquire land compatible with such a rail facility; proximity to the NHHS terminus at Springfield Union Station; availability of sufficient space to construct a facility to accommodate at least three trains; opportunity for potential future site expansion; consistency with City of Springfield development plans; potential for conflict with other passenger and freight rail operations; and environmental impacts, if any.

On the basis of the qualitative analysis of the three potential sites (included in Appendix 4), the Armory Street site was selected as the best long-term location to support the 2030 level of service. Access to the site will require construction of a new 2000-foot access track from Springfield Union Station to the layover area along the former branch line. The current grade from the mainline track to the layover area is uphill at about 1.3 percent. However, the proposed site has recently been filled with poorly compacted uncategorized landfill that would need to be undercut and re-compacted. This would lower the proposed elevation of the site and permit the layover and maintenance area to be graded level or slope away from the mainline. The site is constructible, the land is currently vacant, is reasonably close to the station, and has sufficient space for the proposed facility and for potential future expansion. The City of Springfield supports selection of the Armory Street site as a long-term layover and maintenance site for the NHHS Rail Program. The Armory site would not conflict with existing or future rail operations. The only environmental impact could arise from the undercutting and disposal of the existing landfill, which would be disposed of in accordance with Massachusetts Contingency Plan procedures. In the event that this material is found to contain hazardous substances it would be mitigated in accordance measures identified within both the Hazardous Materials and Construction Impacts sections of this EA/EIE.

Use of the tracks at Springfield Union Station for long-term maintenance and layover needs of three trains is not feasible, as there is insufficient existing space and little opportunity for future expansion at the station. The Sweeney Yard site also lacks sufficient space to meet the long-term requirements presented by the 2030 level of service, and its riverfront location is inconsistent with the City's long-term development objectives. The Springfield Union Station and the Sweeney Yard currently are used for railroad operations so there would be no environmental impacts related to those alternatives.

However, for interim, short-term phase-in of the NHHS service, use of the existing tracks at Springfield Union Station for layover and maintenance of up to two trains would be consistent with existing uses. The City of Springfield has requested that the Sweeney Yard site be used only as a last resort for short-term, interim layover needs, which is consistent with its plans for riverfront redevelopment. Use of either site would require the installation of a temporary trailer or small structure as location for crews/employees to report for maintenance and train operations as well as installation of a 480 volt power supply.

Sidings

Construction of three new railroad passing sidings is included in the proposed project. The sidings would run parallel to the main line tracks and be used to hold freight trains to avoid delays to passenger trains. The sidings would be located as follows:

  • Berlin Siding: MP 26.6-27.8. This siding, which would not be required until 2030 service levels are achieved, would reduce train conflicts south of Hartford for CSO trains serving local area shippers.
  • Hartford Yard Siding: MP 37.2-38.8. This siding would be located within the existing Hartford Railroad Yard and provide storage for freight trains operating to and from the yard and adjoining branch lines and turning passenger trains. The environmental impacts of constructing this siding were evaluated in the CE [Hartford-Windsor] (see Appendix 1. Phase I and Phase 3A CEs) and are incorporated in this EA/EIE by reference.
  • Armory Street Siding: MP 62.3-62.9. This siding, consisting of construction of a parallel track, would provide access to the proposed Springfield layover and light maintenance facility, as described above. This siding would be constructed only if the Armory Street site is selected as the location for the permanent layover and light maintenance facility.

Bridges and Culverts

Improvement of 42 bridges supporting the track, 4 bridges over the track, and 61 culverts is included in the proposed project. These improvements will extend the useful life of the structures, enhance water-carrying capacity of streams, where required, and accommodate restoration of the second track and other infrastructure. Tables 3-2 through 3-4 provide a complete summary of bridges and culverts included in the Phase 1 and Phase 3A CE's and in this EA/EIA.

The remaining bridges and culverts in the corridor are not included in the proposed project's program of infrastructure improvements because they require only routine maintenance or no action (see Appendix 3, List of Bridges and Culverts, for a full listing of such structures in the corridor, including summary information on each structure, its condition and recommended action).

The bridges and culverts included in Tables 3-2 through 3-4 were determined by CTDOT to warrant improvements on the basis of condition assessments and in-depth inspections of the bridges and culverts in the NHHS rail corridor. Each structure's condition was rated excellent, good, fair, poor, serious, or unknown either because access was not available or the structure was not located). Improvements were recommended for each structure based upon the specifics of its condition.

Table 3-2 - Inventory of Undergrade Bridge Improvements in Project

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield High Speed Rail Program UNDERGRADE BRIDGE INVENTORY
State Project No. 170-2296 December 14, 2011
MP Town Phase Over Description Active Tracks # Spans Total Bridge Length, ft Condition Summary Recommended Action Comments
7.03 North Haven Phase 2 Quinnipiac River Deck Girder Double 4.00 152.00 Poor Rehabilitation Existing condition and increased service will require further evaluation.
7.46 North Haven Phase 2 Stream 8' Stone Arch(w/steel plate liner)/Rail Top Ext. Single 1.00 8.00 Good/Fair Rehabilitation Further evaluation required to determine the position of proposed track with respect to the existing rail top extension. Possible replacement of rail top.
10.46 Wallingford Phase 2 Wharton Brook 17' Stone Arch/box culvert extension Single 1.00 17.00 Fair Rehabilitation New retaining structures required to replace existing timber retaining structures, maintenance/rehab to existing arch. Concrete box culvert carries roadway.
12.91 Wallingford Phase 2 Drainage Rail Top Single 1.00 5.00 Poor Replacement or Fill Replacement or abandon/fill of existing structure required.
13.96 Wallingford Phase 2 Stream Stone Arch/Concrete Arch Single 1.00 10.00 Poor Rehabilitation Rehabilitation required to the stone arch.
15.00 Wallingford Phase 2 Drainage Rail Top Single 1.00 6.00 Poor Replacement Replacement - replace rail tops with new structure.
15.26 Wallingford Phase 2 Meetinghouse Brook Reinforced Concrete Beam Single 3.00 58.00 Good Rehabilitation Widening/walkway required for proposed 15' track centers. Evaluation required of existing hydraulic/settlement issue.
15.66 Wallingford Phase 2 Main St/South Broad Rte 71 & 150 Stone Arch Single 1.00 20.00 Fair Rehabilitation Maintenance required to stone arch, retaining structures required to support 2nd track.
16.78 Meriden Phase 2 Gypsy Lane Deck Girder Single 1.00 28.00 Fair Superstructure Replacement Replacement of inactive span required due to extensive vehicle impact. Existing clearance only 9'-5".
18.01 Meriden Phase 2 South Colony St Through Girder Double 1.00 44.00 Poor Rehabilitation Existing condition and increased service will require rehabilitation.
18.48 Meriden Phase 2 Harbor Brook Deck Girder Double 1.00 51.00 Poor Rehabilitation Existing condition and increased service will require rehabilitation.
19.20 Meriden Phase 2 Drainage Rail Top w/brick arch beyond Double 1.00 6.00 Poor Replacement Replacement rail top & timber structure will be required. Timber retaining wall to be replaced with new concrete ballast retainer.
20.83 Meriden Phase 1 Stream Stone Arch/Brick Arch/Concrete Arch Single 1.00 5.00 Fair Rehabilitation Some maintenance or rehabilitation may be required to support the 2nd track.
22.53 Berlin Phase 1 Belcher Brook Stone Arch w/ Rail Top Ballast Retainers Single 1.00 7.00 Fair Possible Replacement Monitoring required for the settled keystone(s). Review limits of rail top relative to tracks.
22.75 Berlin Phase 1 Belcher Brook 5' Cast Iron Pipe in 7' Stone Arch Single 1.00 5.00 Critical Replacement Steel pipe can support 2 tracks. Retaining walls required.
23.76 Berlin Phase 1 Crooked Brook Stone Arch Single 1.00 10.00 Fair Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the arch required, retaining structures required to support second track.
24.85 Berlin Phase 1 Berlin Brook Stone Arch Single 1.00 10.00 Poor Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the arch required, retaining structures required to support second track.
25.52 Berlin Phase 1 Mattabesset River Stone Arch Single 8.00 170.00 Fair Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of existing arch structure.
26.39 Berlin Phase 1 Willow Brook Stone Arch Single 4.00 56.00 Satisfactory Rehabilitation Widening required for second track (between Berlin Station & interlocking).
27.83 New Britain Phase 1 Webster Brook Stone Arch Single 1.00 7.00 Satisfactory Rehabilitation Retaining structures required to support second track.
28.57 Newington Phase 1 Webster Brook Rail Top Single 1.00 5.00 Poor Replacement Complete replacement.
28.63 Newington Phase 1 Webster Brook 42" Concrete Pipe Single 1.00 3.50 Poor Replacement Due to documented flooding at this location, existing culvert will be replaced with proposed bridge (5' x 11' box).
30.99 Newington Phase 1 Piper Brook Concrete Encased
I-Beam
Single 2.00 74.00 West - Satisfactory
East - Replace
Superstructure Replacement Superstructure replacement @ east proposed track w/ substructure extension/ retaining walls.
34.51 Hartford Phase 2 Kane Brook 10' Stone Arch/ Concrete Arch/ Corrugated Metal Pipe Double 1.00 10.00 Poor Rehabilitation Existing tracks supported by 10' stone arch with 1.5'x7' low flow channel. Structure changes to 10' concrete arch/10' Corrugated Metal Pipe. Structure well below grade, extensive repairs/rehabilitation required.
35.15 Hartford Phase 2 Park St Through Girder Single 1.00 79.00 Fair Maintenance/ Rehabilitation Busway- western portion of bridge removed to accommodate the busway. In-depth inspection and rating required to determine requirements.
35.41 Hartford Phase 2 Park River (Old Location) Stone Arch/Concrete Arch Single 3.00 75.00 Fair Removal Arches for former Park River, 3rd arch buried. Remainder of structures should be removed or buried. No rating required. Busway closes off one side.
35.51 Hartford Phase 2 Capital Ave Through Girder Single 3.00 103.00 Poor Rehabilitation Busway- western portion of bridge removed to accommodate the busway. Rating required, additional action required pending results. 20 year rehab and/or future replace.
36.53 Hartford Hartford
Viaduct
Asylum St Through Girder Single 1.00 77.00 Fair Rehabilitation Rating required. 20 year rehab, possible future replacement. Feasibility Study
36.55 Hartford Hartford
Viaduct
Union Station Deck Girder Single 25.00 637.00 Fair Rehabilitation Rating required. 20 year rehab, possible future replacement. Feasibility Study
36.66 Hartford Hartford
Viaduct
Church St Deck Girder Single 2.00 36.00 Fair Rehabilitation Rating required. 20 year rehab, possible future replacement. Feasibility Study
37.35 Hartford Phase 3A Windsor St Concrete Frame/Concrete Encased Girder Single 3.00 93.00 Satisfactory Rehabilitation Parapet needs to be replaced & concert repairs.
39.40 Hartford Phase 3A Meadow Brook Reinforced Concrete Beam Single 1.00 19.00 Satisfactory Possible Widening Structure in satisfactory condition, possible widening required to support 15' track centers.
40.90 Windsor Phase 3A Stream Stone Arch w/ Rail Top Single 1.00 5.00 Satisfactory Rehabilitation Old concrete parapet blocking inlet. Rail Top ext. on East may receive live load when 2nd track is added, possible replacement. MDC sewer main in channel, channel poor shape.
41.62 Windsor Phase 3A Stream Stone/Brick Arch Single 1.00 5.00 Satisfactory Rehabilitation Retaining structures required to support second track.
42.65 Windsor Phase 3A Batchelder Rd Deck Girder Single 1.00 29.00 Satisfactory Rehabilitation Low vertical clearance (11'-9").
46.78 Windsor Locks Phase 3B Waterworks Brook Brick Arch w/stone abutments & Fascia Single 1.00 10.00 Poor Rehabilitation/ Replacement  
49.15 Windsor Locks Phase 3B Cannon Brook Brick Arch w/stone abutments & Fascia Single 1.00 10.00 Serious Replacement Superstructure/bridge replacement.
51.66 Enfield Phase 3B Beemans Brook Brick Arch w/stone abutments & Fascia Single 1.00 9.00 Good Retaining Structures Additional fill required for ballast retainers, retaining structures required.
53.94 Enfield Phase 3B Asnuntuck Rd Brick Arch/ Concrete Arch Single 1.00 18.00 Serious Replacement or fill Replace the existing concrete arch. Low vertical clearance (7'-6"). Possible abandonment of structure in lieu of replace.
53.96 Enfield Phase 3B Freshwater Brook Brick Arch Single 1.00 18.00 Poor Rehabilitation Rating required. Replacement possible pending rating results.
53.98 Enfield Phase 3B Main Street Concrete Encased I-Beam Single 1.00 35.00 Good New Superstructure,
Rehabilitate Substructure
Existing superstructure only accommodates one track. New superstructure required for 2nd track.
54.88 Enfield Phase 3B Waterworks Brook Brick Arch w/Stone Abutments & Fascia/Rail Top Extension Double 2.00 12.00 Fair Retaining Structures New Ballast retainers to replace existing timber retaining structures. Survey required to evaluate location of rail top w/respect to tracks.

Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2011

Table 3-3 - Inventory of Overhead Bridge Improvement in Project

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield High Speed Rail Program OVERHEAD BRIDGE INVENTORY
State Project No. 170-2296 December 14, 2011
MP Town Phase Carries Description Active Tracks Recommended Action Comments
2.36 New Haven Phase 2A YMCA Pedestrian Bridge Through Girder Double Removal Removal of degradated structure required.
2.61 New Haven Phase 2A Yard Pedestrian Bridge Through Truss Double Removal Removal of degradated structure required.
19.90 Meriden Phase 2A Meriden Jct. Branch Deck Girder Double Removal Removal of abandoned structure required.
21.12 Meriden Phase 2A Yales Bridge N/A Single Removal Former Yales Bridge overhead bridge.  Superstructure was removed, substructure remains.  Removal of existing west brownstone abutment recommended due to close clearance with existing track.

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011

Table 3-4 - Inventory of Culvert Improvements in Projects

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield High Speed Rail Program CULVERT INVENTORY
State Project No. 170-2296 DECEMBER 14, 2011
MP Town Phase Description Active Tracks Condition Summary Recommended Action
3.30 Hamden Phase 2A 24" Corrugated Steel Double Unknown Further Evaluation
3.35 Hamden Phase 2A 42" Reinforced Concrete Pipe/Brick Arch Double Fair Further Evaluation
3.75 Hamden Phase 2A 4' (h) X 3' (w) Stone Box Double Fair Further Evaluation
4.86 Hamden Phase 2A 2' (h) x 4'-6" (w) Stone Box Double Poor Further Evaluation
7.99 North Haven Phase 2A 2'-8" (h) x 2'-6" (w)  Stone Box Single Poor Further Evaluation
16.19 Wallingford Phase 2A 2'x3' Brick Arch Single Fair Further Evaluation
16.84 Meriden Phase 2A 18" Corrugated Metal Pipe/4' (h) x 2'-6" (w) Brick Arch Single Poor Further Evaluation
17.00 Meriden Phase 2A 3' (h) x 4' (w) Brick Arch Single Fair Further Evaluation
19.70 Meriden Phase 2A 14" (h) x 35" (w) Brick Arch Double Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
20.25 Meriden Phase 2A 2'x2' Stone Box/Brick Arch Double Poor Further Evaluation
21.49 Meriden Phase 1 3' X 3' Stone Box Single Fair Hydraulic Modeling
21.83 Berlin Phase 1 44" (h) x 35" (w) Stone Box Single Fair Further Evaluation
23.47 Berlin Phase 1 2' (h) x 3' (w) Stone Box Single Poor Hydraulic Modeling
23.80 Berlin Phase 1 2' x 2' Stone Box Single Poor Further Evaluation
24.53 Berlin Phase 1 3' (h) x 2' (w) Stone Box Single Fair Further Evaluation
25.06 Berlin Phase 1 15" HDPE Corrugated Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
25.70 Berlin Phase 1 4' (h) x 3' (w) Brick Arch Single Fair Further Evaluation
27.66 New Britain Phase 1 4' x 4' Stone Arch Single Fair Further Evaluation
28.35 New Britain Phase 1 2' (h) x 3' (w) Stone Box/Rail Top Single Poor Hydraulic Modeling
28.62 Newington Phase 1 4' (h) x 3' (w) Stone Box Single Serious Abandon
28.63 Newington Phase 1 42" Concrete Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
29.22 Newington Phase 1 Double 36"PVC Pipe/ Single 36" Corrugated Metal Pipe Single Fair Further Evaluation
29.87 Newington Phase 1 36" Cast Iron Single Fair Further Evaluation
30.05 Newington Phase 1 18" Corrugated Metal Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
30.16 Newington Phase 1 30" Pipe? Single Unknown Further Evaluation
33.95 West Hartford Phase 2B 2'x2' Stone Box Single Poor Hydraulic Modeling
41.17 Windsor Phase 3A 24" Cast Iron Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
41.77 Windsor Phase 3A 3' x 3' Brick Arch/Concrete Box Ext. Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
42.68 Windsor Phase 3A 15" (h) x 24' (w) Stone Box Single Fair Further Evaluation
43.58 Windsor Phase 3B 12" Cast Iron Double Unknown Further Evaluation
43.60 Windsor Phase 3B 12" Cast Iron Double Unknown Hydraulic Modeling
44.10 Windsor Phase 3B 2'x2'6" Brick Arch Double Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
44.55 Windsor Phase 3B 3' Brick Arch Double Unknown Further Evaluation
45.64 Windsor Phase 3B 12" Cast Iron Double Unknown Further Evaluation
45.70 Windsor Phase 3B 8" Clay Pipe Double Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
47.70 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 12" Cast Iron/Steel Pipe Single Unknown Further Evaluation
47.85 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 12" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
47.90 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 12" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
48.53 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 12" Cast Iron Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
48.59 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 12" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
48.65 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 12" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
48.87 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 2' Stone Box Single Fair Further Evaluation
48.92 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 3'6"x3' Stone Box /Rail Top Single Fair Further Evaluation
49.05 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 18" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
49.30 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 18" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
49.40 Windsor Locks Phase 3B 3'x5' Stone Box -East/ Brick Arch-West Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
50.16 Enfield Phase 3B 2' x2' Brick Arch Single Fair Further Evaluation
50.24 Enfield Phase 3B 24"Corrugated Metal Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
50.48 Enfield Phase 3B 3' x 4' Stone Box Single Fair Further Evaluation
50.90 Enfield Phase 3B 8" Clay Pipe/Stone Box Ext. Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
51.42 Enfield Phase 3B 36" Corrugated Metal Pipe- East/Cast Iron -West Single Fair Further Evaluation
53.15 Enfield Phase 3B 2' x 2' Concrete Box/Stone Box Single Fair Replacement/
Rehabilitation
53.29 Enfield Phase 3B 1'8" x 1'8" Concrete Box- East/ 16" Clay Pipe- West Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
53.57 Enfield Phase 3B 15" Clay Pipe/ 16" Cast Iron Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
54.43 Enfield Phase 3B 18" PVC Pipe Single Fair Further Evaluation
54.56 Enfield Phase 3B 8" Clay Pipe Single Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
56.22 Longmeadow Phase 3B 3' x 3' Stone Box / 18" Steel Pipe Ext. Double Unknown Further Evaluation
56.83 Longmeadow Phase 3B 3' x 4' Stone Box Double Unknown Further Evaluation
57.22 Longmeadow Phase 3B 3' x 5' Stone Box /Brick Arch/Stone Box Double Unknown Further Evaluation
57.62 Longmeadow Phase 3B 48" Cast Iron Double Unknown Further Evaluation
59.73 Springfield Phase 3B 24" Cast Iron Double Poor Replacement/
Rehabilitation
Notes:
(1) Included in the Busway Project.
(2) Amtrak has plans for improvements.

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011

3.4 Applicable Regulations, Required Coordination and Permits

This section identifies permits, approvals, certifications, coordination and registrations that may be required for implementation of the proposed project.

Federal Permit, Compliance, and Coordination Requirements

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 USC Section 4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their proposals, to consult with other interested agencies and the public, to document the analysis, and to make this information available to the public for comment before the implementation of the proposals.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)

The ACOE has jurisdiction, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC Section 1251 et seq.), to regulate discharge of dredge or fill material into all waters of the United States including open water, inland wetlands and tidal wetlands. The ACOE coordinates the issuance of a Section 404 wetlands permit with the State of Connecticut Water Quality Certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The ACOE also has jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 over work performed in navigable waters in the United States. In the case where a Section 404 permit is required, any Section 10 requirements would be combined with the Section 404 permit procedures. Encroachment into wetlands as a result of the proposed project would require a Section 404 permit. Work done to bridges over the Connecticut River or other waters deemed to be navigable by the ACOE would also require a Section 10 permit.

Hazardous Materials Regulations

Risk sites, regulated by Federal and Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) 22a-134, may be located along the rail corridor. CTDOT Task 210 or Massachusetts Contingency Plan procedures will be implemented during the design phase of the project for areas on or adjacent to identified high-risk sites to comply with CGS 22a-134 and would include final permitting process through site investigations and environmental audits. Actions to remediate the identified sites, avoid them or otherwise bring them into compliance will be taken prior to or during construction.

Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f), requires that federal agencies consider the effect of their undertakings on historic properties. This requirement is independent of, but is typically coordinated with, the environmental review process conducted pursuant to NEPA. Coordination with the Connecticut and Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officers (CTSHPO and MASHPO) and Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is required to ensure that anticipated impacts from the proposed project would be acceptably removed or minimized. A PA is being entered into between FRA, CTDOT, CTSHPO, MASHPO, and others to ensure compliance with Section 106.

Section 4(f)

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which applies to all agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation, prohibits such agencies from approving the use of publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and public and private historic sites unless the agencies make two findings: 1) that there is no feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the use of Section 4(f) properties; and 2) that the project or action includes all possible planning to minimize the harm that would result from the use of those resources. None of the publicly owned recreational properties or wildlife protection areas that are located in the NHHS rail corridor would be impacted by the proposed project; therefore, there will be no use of these resources... However, the NHHS rail corridor contains resources that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined to be National Register-eligible, and some may be used for implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, a 4(f) determination will likely be completed for this project as the design progresses.

Section 6(f)

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LAWCFA) 16 USC Sections 460L4 through 460L11, as amended, requires that property acquired or developed with LAWCFA funding not be used for any purpose other than public outdoor recreation without the approval of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. There is only one resource funded and protected under Section 6(f) within the corridor study area: Bushnell Park located in downtown Hartford, CT. There would be no impact to this Section 6(f) land with the proposed project; therefore, Section 6(f) evaluation is not required.

Public Health Service Act (Safe Drinking Water Act)

The 1986 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC Sections 300f through 300j-26, as amended) grants primary authority to the states for adoption and enforcement of regulations for the protection of water systems and supplies. If the proposed project involves construction activity on public water supply watershed lands, a review is required by the Connecticut Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health.

Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970

Affected property owners would be afforded relocation assistance through the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970. CTDOT is authorized and required to provide monetary and other relocation assistance to displaced property owners whose properties would be acquired for implementation of the proposed federally funded project.

Executive Orders

The federal Executive Orders listed below must be taken into consideration as part of the evaluation of each alternative:

  • Executive Order 11990 mandating that federal agencies ensure preservation and enhancement of wetland resources;
  • Executive Order 11988 directing federal agencies to take appropriate action to minimize flood hazards and impacts resulting from modifications to floodplains; and
  • Executive Order 12898 requiring federal agencies to ensure that their programs, policies and activities do not result in disproportionally high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.

Other Coordination Requirements

  • National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Coordination
    Amtrak, owner of the Springfield Line, currently operates regional passenger service between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts. Coordination with Amtrak is required during the planning, design and construction phases of the project. Amtrak requires that its personnel review all plans and design work. During construction, Amtrak requires that safety personnel be on site for any work that is at or adjacent to its tracks.
  • Rail Freight Operations Coordination
    The proposed project requires coordination with rail freight operators to avoid adverse impacts to their operations during construction and as additional passenger rail service is phased in. This includes the following freight railroads: CSX Transportation, Connecticut Southern Railroad, Pan Am Railroad, Providence Worcester Railroad and the Central New England Railroad.

Applicable State Regulations, Required Coordination and Permits

Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA): This environmental document has also been prepared in accordance with CEPA - Connecticut General Statutes (CGS), Sections 22a-1a through 22a-1h and thus serves as an EIE under CEPA review. If it is determined that no significant impacts would result from the proposed project, Connecticut's Office of Policy and Management would concur with the FRA's decision document (i.e., either a FONSI or Record of Decision on this EA/EIE or future environmental review documents). The MassDOT has determined that work proposed by the NHHS Project in Massachusetts does not trigger any thresholds under MEPA and therefore is not subject to review under MEPA. See Appendix 8 for supporting correspondence from MassDOT.

The following regulations are applicable to the surface water resources and groundwater resources throughout the study corridor and to the proposed project:

  • Connecticut Surface Water Quality Standards (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection [CT DEEP], Effective February 25, 2011);
  • State of Connecticut Integrated Water Quality Report (Draft, April 11, 2011);
  • CT DEEP Groundwater Quality Standards (Effective April 12, 1996); and
  • Massachusetts Surface Water Permit Discharge Program, 314CMR 3.00 and 4.00.

Principal applicable state law concerning the proposed project's impact to wetlands is as follows:

  • The Connecticut Inland Wetland and Watercourses Act (CGS Section 22a-36 through 22a-45a, inclusive);
  • The Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA) (CGS Sections 22a-90 through 22a-112, inclusive); and
  • The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL Chapter 13 Section 40).

The following regulations are applicable to the consideration of wild and scenic rivers, navigable waterways, and coastal resources in the NHHS rail corridor:

  • Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, October 2, 1968;
  • Navigable waterways of the United States are defined (33 CFR Part 329) as "those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce;
  • Navigable waterways are also regulated by the CT DEEP, and bridges that cross them may be regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard;
  • Connecticut's Coastal Management Act; and
  • Section 22a-94 of the Connecticut General Statutes, in which coastal waters are defined by the state as those waters of Long Island Sound and other associated waters that contain a salinity of at least 500 parts per million (ppm) under low-flow stream conditions; and
  • Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act as Amended, 1996.

In addition, the following regulations are applicable to the proposed project's effects on floodplains and floodways and Connecticut-designated stream channel encroachment lines (SCELs):

  • Sections 25-68b through 25-68h, inclusive, of the CGS, Connecticut's Flood Management Program. This program, administered by the CT DEEP, regulates state agency actions affecting floodplains and natural man-made storm drainage facilities. Agencies undertaking such actions must submit a Flood Management Certification (FMC) describing the project activities and the measures taken to meet the program's standards. Under recent provisions, project-related improvements that result in the loss of flood storage capacity may be required to provide flood storage compensation.
  • The Connecticut SCEL program, administered by the CT DEEP, regulates activities within designated SCELs and issues permits only if there is a clear demonstration that the project would not cause an increase in flood hazard or other adverse effects.

State laws governing review of the proposed project's effects on threatened and endangered (T&E) species are as follows:

  • The Connecticut Endangered Species Act (CGS 26-303) declared a policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any endangered or threatened species and essential habitat. The act requires that any action authorized, funded or performed by a state agency not threaten the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat designated as essential to such species, using the best scientific data available.
  • Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (310CMR 10:00).

While no site has been identified in Hamden, Hamden officials remain interested in working with CTDOT to identify a future station site that would be coupled with future transit-oriented development the Town envisions along the Route 5 (State Street) corridor. Such a new station project would be separate from the proposed project evaluated in this EA.

©

logo: Connecticut Department of Transportation