The URL can be used to link to this page

Vermonter EA 092109 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT KNOWLEDGE CORRIDOR – RESTORE VERMONTER SPRINGFIELD TO EAST NORTHFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545 by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works Date of Approval for Federal Railroad Administration The following persons may be contacted for information on the Environmental Assessment: Timothy Doherty Massachusetts Director of Rail Programs 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 (617) 973-7840 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................................... ........ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Area ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project History ............................ .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project Purpose and Need ..................................................................... ....................................... 4 1.5 Decisions to be made .................................................................................................................... 5 1.5.1 No-Action (No-build) Alternative .......................................................................................... 5 1.5.2 Action (Proposed Project) Alternative ..................... ............................................................. 5 1.6 Connected Actions ................................................................................................................. ....... 7 1.7 Applicable Regulations and Permits ............................................................................................. 8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ..................................... .................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................... .................................................. 9 2.2 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Proposed Project Alternative ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Rail & Track Upgrades .............................. ........................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Reactivation of Passing Sidings and Double Track .............................................................. 10 2.3.3 Grade Crossing Upgrades .................................................................................................... 11 2.3.4 Signal and Communication System Upgrades .................................................................... 11 2.3.5 Bridge Improvements ..................................................................................................... .... 11 2.3.6 Station/Platforms ................................................................................................................ 11 2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ................................................ 12 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. .... 14 3.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 15 3.1.1 Air Quality .............................. ............................................................................................. 15 3.1.2 Water Resources and Quality .................................................................... ......................... 16 3.1.3 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 17 3.1.4 Floodplains .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.5 Noise and Vibration ............................................... ............................................................. 18 3.2 Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... .... 24 3.2.1 Ecological Systems .............................................................................................................. 24 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter ii 3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 24 3.3 Human Environment 3.3.1 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Land Use and Zoning ................................ ........................................................................... 32 3.3.3 Property Acquisition ............................................................................................. .............. 39 3.3.4 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................. 40 3.3.5 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................................................... 46 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste ......................................... .............................. 46 3.3.7 Cultural/Historic Resources ....................................................................................................... 47 3.4 Construction Impacts .................................................................................................................. 49 3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts .................................... ........................................................ 50 3.5.1 Secondary Impacts .............................................................................................................. 50 3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 52 4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION ......................... .................................................................. 55 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................... .................. 56 6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST .............................................................................................................................. 58 7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDICES Appendix A. Air Quality Memorandum Appendix B. Water Resources Memorandum Appendix C. Noise and Vibration Memorandum Appendix D. Threatened and Endangered Species Memorandum Appendix E. Social & Economic Memorandum Appendix F. Cultural Resources Memorandum 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOT), in conjunction with t Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) Transportation (VTrans); Pan Am Southern Railroad (PAS); and Amtrak, is considering potential improvements in passenger rail service Knowledge Corridor between Springfield and East Northfield in Massachusetts. Amtrak currently operates a passenger train, known as the Vermonter, providing daily roundtrip service between St. Alba and Washington, D.C, which passes through the Knowledge Corridor. The Proposed Project is to restore Amtrak’s intercity passenger train service to its original route by relocating the Vermonter from the New England Central Railroad back to its former route on the Pan Am Southern Railroad (see Figure 1-Amtrak service in Vermont and south of Springfield would remain unchanged. The Pan Am Southern Rail route provides a shorter and more direct route for the Vermonter between Springfield and East Northfield, and improves improves access to densely populated areas along the Connecticut River. The Pan Am Southern Rail route would include station stops at the former A station at Northampton and the new intermodal station at Greenfield. The Project would require improvements to the existing Pan Am Southern rail line, including crosstie replacement, rail replacement, rehabilitation of grade crossings, reactivation of passing sidings and portions of double track, upgrading of switches, improvements to signal and communications systems, surfacing and alignment of track, and improvements to bridges and station platforms. These improvements the relocation of the Vermonter by improving safety, increasing operating speeds for existing freight train traffic and the Vermonter, and enhancing capacity on Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter he , the Pioneer PVPC); Vermont Agency of rans); in the I-91 own Albans, Vermont -1). The routing of Amtrak would facilitate ion 1 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 2 the rail line to accommodate future increased levels of train traffic. This Project facilitates the expansion of passenger rail service in the Knowledge Corridor by providing greater access to population centers and providing capacity for potential additional train frequencies and increased speeds. In addition, additional stations could be added to provide greater passenger access in communities served by the restored Vermonter route. Expansion of rail services along the Knowledge Corridor is anticipated to provide economic revitalization and investment in communities with stations and the region, reduce pollutants associated with automobile travel, and reduce traffic and congestion. 1.2 Project Area The project area consists of the Knowledge Corridor in Massachusetts, between Springfield and East Northfield. The Knowledge Corridor is traversed north-south by I-91 and the Connecticut River, as well as by the NECR and PAS rail lines. Major communities include Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, Amherst, Greenfield, and Northfield. The project area includes portions of Franklin, Hampton, and Hampshire Counties. 1.3 Project History The Connecticut River Valley has long served as a connection between New York and Eastern Canada and as a critical north-south transportation corridor for New England. Some of the earliest north-south railroads in North America connected the cities and towns along the Connecticut River and provided the first rail links between Boston, New York, and Montreal. The rail corridor that developed along the Connecticut River was a primary transportation mode for both passengers and freight service well into the last century. Different segments of the rail corridor were constructed and owned by different railroad companies and that condition remains today (PVPC, 2009). From the south, the 62 mile long rail segment between New Haven CT, Hartford CT, and Springfield MA, was originally the New Haven Railroad and is currently owned and operated by Amtrak as the Springfield Line. The 49 mile long segment between Springfield and East Northfield, VT is the former Boston and Maine and is now Pan Am Railway’s Conn River Line. The final 70 mile section between East Northfield, VT and White River Junction, VT is owned by New England Central Railroad and has trackage in both Vermont and New Hampshire. The Knowledge Corridor is the label given the area between Springfield, Massachusetts and White River Junction, Vermont. The Knowledge Corridor, running north-south along Interstate 91 and the Connecticut River Valley, consists of high-density communities in addition to a multitude of important cultural, educational, business, and medical facilities. It is an important cultural and economic backbone for New England. In 2008, the PVPC, with support from VTrans and EOT, began studying possible future passenger rail options to improve speed, maximize access, and provide viable transportation alternatives within the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 3 Knowledge Corridor. The PVPC study objectives were to improve mobility and spark economic development (PVPC, 2009). Three major rail service options were included in the study: • Return Amtrak service to the Connecticut River Line between Springfield and East Northampton; • Evaluate Commuter Rail Options for the line between Springfield and points north; and • Evaluate intercity travel options. The PVPC study area extends from New Haven, Connecticut, to St. Albans, Vermont, with a primary focus on the existing rail corridor between Springfield, Massachusetts and White River Junction, Vermont. Amtrak initially operated nighttime passenger rail service (known as the Montrealer) from Springfield north through Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield on the Boston and Maine Railroad line, continuing to Montreal, Canada. Poor track conditions on the Boston and Maine line led to Amtrak’s suspension of passenger service on that route in April 1987. Amtrak’s Montrealer service was relocated to the existing freight rail tracks operated by Central Vermont Railroad (CVR) through Amherst and the Montrealer service was reestablished in July 1989. In February 1995, the rail company RailTex purchased CVR and renamed the property New England Central Railroad (NECR). Shortly after this purchase, the nighttime Montrealer service became the "Vermonter" daytime operation from Washington, D.C., to St. Albans, Vermont. The State of Vermont subsidizes operation of the Vermonter. Amtrak’s Vermonter service currently makes one trip daily in each direction between St. Albans and Washington, D.C. The Vermonter stops in Springfield and Amherst, Massachusetts once per day in each direction (Franklin Regional Transportation Plan, 2007). The Vermonter currently travels through New Haven to Springfield, then travels east on the CSX Railroad Boston line to Palmer, where it makes a cumbersome reverse movement to gain access to the NECR line, and then north on the NECR through Amherst to East Northfield and into Vermont (see Figure 1-2). Figure 1-2 Existing Vermonter Route Map Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 4 1.4 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to enhance mobility in the region and the Knowledge Corridor by improving the viability and long-term sustainability of passenger rail service from Springfield, Massachusetts, north into Vermont. Factors that enhance viability and long-term sustainability of passenger rail service include: • Increasing access to passenger rail service, • Reducing travel time, • Increasing revenue per train and/or reducing train operation costs, • Increasing ridership per train, and • Enhancing system capacity for future service improvements. There is a need to reduce congestion and enhance safety on the I-91 highway corridor in Massachusetts, which experienced an estimated 22 percent increase in highway traffic volume between 1994 and 2004. Average daily traffic and vehicle miles travelled are expected to steadily increase through 2030. Currently, I-91 faces daily congestion backups at the Connecticut state line despite investments in new capacity, such as a dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane (PVPC RTP, 2007). As traffic congestion on I-91 increases, it will become necessary to explore the use of intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation. The need for improved intercity passenger rail service is further demonstrated by the recent Increase in ridership on the Vermonter due to rising gas prices and increasing congestion on I-91. The annual ridership in 2008 was estimated to be 72,655. The State of Vermont currently subsidizes the Amtrak Vermonter. Each year the cost for service has increased. In 2008, Vermont subsidized over 4 million dollars for Amtrak Vermonter. There is a need to minimize the cost for the subsidy of the Vermonter to maintain the ability of Vermont to continue to subsidize the train. Increasing ridership per train north of Springfield would reduce the subsidy per train and enhance the viability of continued passenger rail service in this corridor. Thus to maintain the longterm support of the required subsidy of the Vermonter it is important to seek means to minimize operating cost and increase revenue per train. Improving the viability and long-term sustainability of passenger rail service from Springfield, Massachusetts, north into Vermont would also enhance economic growth in the region. The Knowledge Corridor connects many areas that are currently experiencing limited or even negative economic growth. There is a defined need to provide economic stimulus by improving transportation options for both passengers and rail freight. Moreover, economic analysis indicates that the municipalities within the study area have suitable physical infrastructure for further development but have lacked a true catalyst to accelerate growth. The two cities proposed for station development, Northampton and Greenfield, already have a downtown infrastructure suitable to transit-oriented development. Economic forecasts also indicate potential for using Springfield as a hub to further increase commuting and traveling opportunities to and from the study area. These characteristics include dense development patterns, historically active downtown centers, and nearby mixed-use development. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 5 Reestablishment of passenger rail in the Knowledge Corridor is expected to generate induced economic development and could potentially result in 5,500 jobs and a population increase of 13,400 for the Pioneer Valley by 2030 (PVPC, 2009). 1.5 Decisions to be Made Project activities and analysis will be conducted in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The purpose of this document is to provide government agencies and the public with full accounting of potential impacts to the natural, social, economic, and cultural environments. This document serves as the primary document to facilitate review of the alternatives developed to meet the project purpose and need. Potential alternatives for consideration include a No-Action Alternative and an Action Alternative. 1.5.1 No-Action (No-build) Alternative The No-Action or No-build alternative consists of the continued operation of the current Amtrak route, with the present level of maintenance. There would be no major changes to the current track configuration or operating conditions. Amtrak would continue to operate the Vermonter on the CSX Boston line between Springfield and Palmer, conduct a reverse movement at Palmer to transition onto the NECR line, and then on the NECR line from Palmer to East Northfield, with a single station at Amherst. 1.5.2 Action (Proposed Project) Alternative The Action Alternative, referred to as the Proposed Project or Project, would return Amtrak service to the PAS Connecticut River Line between Springfield and East Northfield. Stations would be provided at the existing Amtrak station in Northampton and a new intermodal station in Greenfield. The Vermonter would continue to provide daily roundtrip service between St. Alban’s, Vermont and Washington D.C. The Proposed Project would also include physical improvements to the Connecticut River Line, including crosstie replacement, rail replacement, rehabilitation of grade crossings, reactivation of passing sidings and portions of double track, upgrading of switches, improvements to signal and communications systems, surfacing and alignment of track, and improvements to bridges and station platforms. In addition, the proposed project would facilitate the expansion of passenger rail service in the I-91 Knowledge Corridor, including provisions for increased speeds and future increased train frequencies. Expansion of rail services along the Knowledge Corridor is anticipated to provide economic revitalization, reduce pollutants associated with automobile travel, and reduce traffic and congestion. Higher population densities in th Figure 1-3) primarily occur in the communities along I 91 and the Connecticut River. The exist route largely avoids these communities by tracking east on the CSX Boston line to Palmer and then north on the NECR. The only community directly served is Amherst. Relocating Amtrak’s passenger service to the PAS Connecticut River line and pro Northampton and Greenfield as proposed would improve access to passenger rail service by serving areas with larger population densities ( The potential future addition of a station at Holyoke could further enhance access (a station at Holyoke is not included within this project). Reducing travel time on the Vermonter improves its desirability as a transportation mode. A faster passenger rail service will increase ridership as more people take the train over congested hig Current train service speeds are limited by congested rail lines, poor track configurations, and an unnecessary additional train movement east from Springfield before turning north. The existing Vermonter service traverses the congested line from Springfield to Palmer. This is heavily east-west freight mainline, with limited capacity for adding additional trains. Trains connecting between the CSX line and the NECR line at Palmer must stop and make a reverse movement, causing d The total trip between Springfield and East Northfield is 60.4 miles. Relocating the Vermonte Connecticut River line between Springfield and East Northfield reduces the trip length by 11 miles plus it eliminates unnecessary east movement along the CSX Boston line, and the reverse movement at Palmer. These changes in operations are estimated to reduce travel time by 23 to 26 minutes between Springfield and East Northfield, thereby increasing ridership and meeting the purpose and need. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter the project area (see I-existing Amtrak providing stations at see Figure 1-4). highways. CSX Boston heavily-traveled, delays in service. Vermonter onto the PAS 6 1.6 Connected Actions The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission identifies three related rail improvement projects within the Knowledge Corridor. Boston-Springfield-Hartford High Speed feasibility of High Speed Rail between Boston, Springfield, and Hartford Haven. This study will look at reestablishing connectivity and providing better transportation access to the Boston metro area and promoting economic development in Springfield and Western Massachusetts. Funding for this effort was established in the Federal Appropriations bill in FY2005 of 2009. Union Station Revitalization: The 1926 train station in surrounding areas are the subject of an ongoing site is located in the downtown (north blocks) area and involves the restoration of Union Station located on Frank B. Murray Street and the development of an abutting vacant lot on Main Street. After revitalization is complete, Union Station would again become the Springfield station for Intercity Passenger Service (Amtrak), as well as the terminus for new commuter Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter Figure 1.4 Service Depiction Rail Corridor Feasibility Study: This study evaluates the and the study is expected downtown Springfield, Union Station, and renovation and revitalization plan. The development k rail service. 7 to begin in the fall the . Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 8 DMU Equipment for Vermonter Line: VTrans has considered replacing Vermonter equipment, currently push/pull coaches with a diesel locomotive, with Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) which could potentially reduce operating costs and allow for additional frequency of service on the line. DMUs do not have locomotives but instead smaller diesel engines in each car, so train length can be easily varied based on passenger demand. 1.7 Applicable Regulations and Permits The following statutes and orders apply to the proposed action and were considered during the preparation of this document: • Endangered Species Act, as regulated at 50 CFR 17 • Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC § 4321 et seq., signed January 1, 1970 • Public Law 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376 • Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC 401 • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC 470 • Section 4(4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC 303 • Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA) • Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC 460 • Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42 USC 61 • Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977 • Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977 • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994 • Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.) • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 65 FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000 • Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) and 49 CFR Part 260.35 • Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978 • National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR 61 and 40 CFR 63 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 9 • Federal Register, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule, 49 CFR parts 222 and 229, April 27, 2005 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Wetlands Protection Act Regulations and Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act as Amended, 310 CMR 10.00 • Massachusetts Surface Water Permit Discharge Program, 314 CMR 3.00 and 4.00 • Massachusetts Noise Regulations, 310 CMR 7.10 • Massachusetts Endangered Species Act; 321 CMR 10:00 • Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations, 310 CMR 30.000 • Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), 310 CMR 11.00 The need for permits associated with the Proposed Project would be determined by applicable federal, state and local permitting agencies. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOT) consulted with various municipalities and public stakeholders during the identification and evaluation of alternatives. Project alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet project purpose and need, meet engineering design criteria, and avoid or reduce adverse impacts to the physical, biological, and human environment. Three alternatives were identified and evaluated; one was dismissed, and two were retained for detailed evaluation: the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Project Alternative. 2.2 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative consists of the continued operation of the current Amtrak route, with the present level of maintenance and no major changes to the current track configuration or operating conditions. There would continue to be a daily train traveling north and south between Washington, D.C., and St. Albans, Vermont. Amtrak passenger service between Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts, would continue to travel from Springfield to Palmer on the congested CSX mainline. Trains would conduct a reverse movement at Palmer to switch between the CSX railway and the NECR line. The Amtrak service would travel from Palmer on the NECR through Amherst to East Northfield and into Vermont. The route is 60.4 miles long, with a train speed of 55 mph. The No-Action Alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because it would not enhance the viability of passenger rail service in the Knowledge Corridor from Springfield, Massachusetts, north into Vermont. The No-Action Alternative does not increase access to passenger rail service, reduce travel time, increase ridership per train, or provide for future rail service expansion. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 10 The No-Action Alternative was retained for further analysis to provide a comparison to the Proposed Project and to help decision-makers and public stakeholders understand the impacts of taking no action. 2.3 Proposed Project Alternative The Proposed Project, or Preferred Alternative, would relocate the Amtrak intercity passenger train, known as the Vermonter, from the New England Central Railroad back to its former route on the Pan Am Southern Railroad between Springfield and East Northfield in Massachusetts. It is anticipated that initial service would include station stops at the former Amtrak station at Northampton and the new intermodal station at Greenfield. The proposed route affords the opportunity for establishing additional stations in the future. One potential future station location is in Holyoke. The project would include improvements to the existing Pan Am Southern rail line, including crosstie replacement, rail replacement, rehabilitation of grade crossings, reactivation of passing sidings and portions of double track, upgrading of switches, improvements to signal and communications systems, surfacing and alignment of track, and improvements to bridges and station platforms. The Project improvements would occur within the existing right-of-way owned by the Pan Am Southern. The Project does not involve any acquisition of additional right-of-way. The Proposed Project does not involve any additional ballast or fill material to be placed beyond the existing limits of ballast or fill. As such, there would be no culvert repair or replacement. There will be no in-water work in federal or state regulated wetlands or waterways. The Project does not involve clearing or grading activity. 2.3.1 Rail & Track Upgrades • The existing jointed rail would be replaced with new continuous welded rail for 49 miles of track. • All new rail on passing sidings and double track would be welded. • Crossties would be replaced as necessary. • Switch upgrade at MP 45.5. 2.3.2 Reactivation of Passing Sidings and Double Track Several sections where passing sidings and portions of double track existed would be reactivated. These sidings and double track sections would be newly constructed on existing ballast. There would be no new ballast or fill placed beyond the existing limits of ballast or fill. Reactivation of passing sidings and portions of double track would occur at: • ~ MP 0 – 1.6, siding east side of mainline. • ~ MP 6.8 – 7.26, siding east side of mainline. • ~ MP 13.5 – 14.15, siding east side of mainline. • ~ MP 15.2 – 16, siding west side of mainline. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 11 • ~ MP 27.7 – 29.2, siding west side of mainline. • ~ MP 32.6 – 36.6, double track section west side of mainline. 2.3.3 Grade Crossing Upgrades • All at-grade highway/rail crossings will be improved, to include provision of an active warning device. The active warning device will consist of either flashing lights or flashing lights and crossing barriers. The specific warning device for each grade crossing will be determined in coordination with Massachusetts Department of Public Utility during project final design. 2.3.4 Signal and Communication System Upgrades • Signal rehabilitation will be made to support the operations plan. Improvements include restoring the signal system north of Greenfield and adding 5 interlockings. 2.3.5 Bridge Improvements • Bridges will be inspected and repaired as necessary, possibly including replacement of rails, crossties, and other minor components. Bridge repair will not require in-water work or alteration of the bridge’s key structural components. 2.3.6 Station/Platforms • Stations will be sited to optimize service of the community and fit current and future land use plans of the local communities. • Platforms will be designed to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable state and federal regulations for railroad stations and platform facilities. Northampton The Northampton Station would be located at current station location off of Railroad Avenue. (This station was used to provide Amtrak passenger rail service for the Montrealer.) The station would utilize the existing station structure and parking facilities. The existing station platform would be upgraded to facilitate safe and efficient boarding of trains. Greenfield The Greenfield Station would be constructed as part of the future inter-modal hub located at the former Toyota Center. Station-goers will utilize current parking facilities associated with Bank Row and Garden Cinema adjacent to proposed station. Station location would be integrated with redevelopment of Bank Row area on Olive Street. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 12 2.3.7 Applicable Permits and Agency Coordination The Proposed Project will require the following permits and/or agency coordination prior to construction: The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131 § 40) (WPA) and implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00) is a state statute administered locally by the municipal Conservation Commission. The WPA requires the preparation of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for work within a wetland resource area or for work within 100 feet of certain wetland resource areas (i.e., the 100-foot Buffer Zone). Portions of Project activities will likely be located within the WPA buffer zone to wetland resource areas and within previously disturbed Riverfront Areas. A Notice of Intent filing with the applicable Conservation Commissions (Northfield, Bernardston, Greenfield, Deerfield, Whately, Hatfield, Northampton, Easthampton, Holyoke, Chicopee, and Springfield) will be required for activities located either within resource areas or within their applicable buffer zones. FRA will determine applicability of a Quiet Zone designation for the at-grade crossings where horn noise would create a severe impact during project final design. FRA must complete a formal consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission [MHC] regarding the determination of no effect on historic resources and a de minimis use of a Section 4(f) resource. 2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 2.4.1 Corridor Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis An alternative that involved upgrading the existing route along the CSX and NECR lines was considered. This alternative would have involved similar track improvements to that proposed for the PAS line, including crosstie replacement, rail replacement, rehabilitation of grade crossings, upgrading of switches, improvements to signal and communications systems, surfacing and alignment of track, and improvements to bridges and the Amherst station platform. The alternative also includes a completely new bridge in Palmer crossing the Quaboag River to eliminate the reverse move in Palmer. These system upgrades would likely provide modest improvements to system performance and slightly reduce travel time. However, this alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis for the following reasons: • The alternative would not provide a shorter route. The CSX/NECR route is 10 miles longer than the proposed PAS route. • The alternative’s continued reliance on the CSX segment between Springfield and Palmer restricts reliability and on-time performance due to congestion on the line. The CSX segment is part of the busiest section of freight railroad in New England, with more than 30 trains per day on a primarily single track railroad. • The alternative is not anticipated to markedly increase ridership as travel time would not dramatically decrease. • This alternative does not serve the urban centers of the Knowledge Corridor in comparison to the Proposed Project alternative which has 124,875 more people living within 5 miles of the station locations. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 13 • The new bridge in Palmer would have adverse environmental impacts. Further, due to the reliance on the congested CSX Boston line to move Amtrak trains from Springfield to Palmer this alternative places limitations on future passenger rail service expansion. 2.4.2 Station Site and Parking Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Greenfield The former station stop, located adjacent to the Greenfield Energy Park on the western side of the Pan Am Railway’s Conn River Line was analyzed as a potential station site for the Project. Analysis showed that the existing station consisted of a badly-crumbled remnant of the former platform. The existing wrought iron fencing around Energy Park appears to impose limitations on both platform width and the ability to construct station facilities. In addition, accessibility to this location is not optimal, as it is located at the end of a short side street off Main Street in the middle of downtown Greenfield. This site appeared to have very limited parking availability and potential. At present there are approximately 30 spaces of free public parking with little room to either expand this parking area, or to construct a station facility, without taking some of the currently available parking spaces. Therefore, this alternative station location was eliminated from detailed analysis. Northampton A station site located approximately the same distance from town center as the former Amtrak station site, but to the north, was analyzed for the Project. The city has plans to replace the existing Registry of Deeds and Probate with a new Justice Center. Behind that new Justice Center and adjacent to the Connecticut River Main Line would be a new parking structure, with the potential for a train station to be located on the second floor so that the platform would be at grade with the rail line. However, as the Justice Center Development is in the early planning phase, unknowns associated with the final development program and and configuration and with the ultimate schedule for completion of that project make this a less desirable location for a station at the present time. Therefore, this alternative station location was eliminated from detailed analysis. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 14 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter provides an overview of the probable beneficial and adverse effects of the Proposed Project and the no action or No-Build Alternative on both the built environment and the natural environment. A number of physical, biological and human resources were reviewed as part of this environmental review process. Information regarding the existing conditions of the resources within the study area was collected from a number of sources. Following collection of existing conditions information (also known as affected environment), analyses of the impacts of the two alternatives were performed. The impacts analyses generally overlay the Proposed Project and the No-Build Alternative upon the existing conditions findings. Based on this “overlay”, potential impacts to the natural and built environment or elements of the study area are identified. For certain resources, more technical analyses are performed. The extent of these impacts is typically quantified, if appropriate. Mitigation measures – that is, ways in which impacts can be avoided or made less harmful – are also identified where warranted as part of this analysis. The probable beneficial and adverse effects identified include direct and indirect effects, and cumulative impacts: Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR §1508.8). Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR §1508.8). Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR §1508.7). Several Technical Memoranda and other studies have been prepared to provide more detailed information in the areas of Air Quality, Wetlands and Water Resources, Noise and Vibration, Rare Species, Economic Development, and Cultural Resources. These materials are attached as Appendices A – F in this document. The direct and indirect effects, and cumulative impacts expected from the Proposed Project and the No Build Alternative are described below. Direct and indirect effects are discussed by resource. Only those resources that have a reasonable likelihood to be affected by, or to affect, the Proposed Project, are addressed herein. Resources that would not be affected were not inventoried or analyzed within this document, and include: Geology – The Proposed Project would have no effect on geological resources; project construction does not require deep excavation or structural foundations. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 15 Soils – The Proposed Project occurs within existing right-of-way. Construction of new track and support structures occurs largely on top of existing ballast. No additional soils are cleared or affected. Farmlands – The Proposed Project occurs within existing right-of-way, and therefore would not affect farmlands. Coastal Zone Management – The Proposed Project is not within the coastal zone. Wildlife – The Proposed Project occurs within existing rail right-of-way that is already developed with rail infrastructure. The right-of-way provides almost no habitat for wildlife. Vegetation – The Proposed Project occurs within existing rail right-of-way that is already developed with rail infrastructure. The right-of-way contains little vegetation. Short-term temporary impacts associated with project construction activities are discussed separately, as are cumulative impacts. The Proposed Project is also compared with the No-Build Alternative. 3.1 Physical Environment 3.1.1 Air Quality Since the project has the potential to affect air quality in the region, an analysis was performed to estimate impacts that might result from the proposed relocation of the Amtrak “Vermonter” line (see Appendix A). The analysis was performed to address the requirements set forth in both 40 CFR 93, with respect to Conformity, and 40 CFR 50, with respect to health-based air quality standards. The air quality analysis focuses on the relocation of a single Amtrak P-42 locomotive from one existing rail line to another existing rail line. The relocation, combined with planned track improvements, will result in the train’s traveling a shorter distance and at a higher average speed. This analysis quantitatively assesses the emissions changes resulting from the relocation and qualitatively assesses changes in the resulting pollutant concentrations that could be expected from these emissions. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not affect air quality. The review of local air quality in the region confirms that the area is in attainment of ambient air quality standards for all pollutants except ozone. It is anticipated this would continue under the No-Build Alternative. Proposed Project The Proposed Project has beneficial effects on air quality and no adverse effects on air quality. The Proposed Project will result in a decrease in air emissions due to the shorter distance of the proposed rail line and the increased speed at which the train will travel. The shorter distance and increased speed result in a significantly shorter time that the locomotives will be in use. Overall, emissions are expected to decrease approximately 28% due to the changes in speed and distance. Emissions of NOx are expected to decrease 9 tons per year (from 32 tpy to 23 tpy). Emissions of CO are expected to decrease 1.3 tons per year (from 4.9 tpy to 3.6 tpy). Emissions of all other criteria Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 16 pollutants, metals, and hazardous air pollutants are expected to decrease less than 1 tpy each. Due to the decrease in overall emissions of 28%, it can be expected that the overall air quality in the project’s region would be improved. Finally, the project is presumed to conform to the General and Transportation Conformity requirements as promulgated in 40 CFR 93. The proposed relocation area is in attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all pollutants except ozone (Subpart 2/Moderate). Massachusetts is part of the ozone transport region. Since emissions from the Proposed Project are below all applicable de minimis thresholds, the project is exempt from the requirements of General Conformity. 3.1.2 Water Resources and Quality The Proposed Project crosses two major rivers, the Connecticut River and the Deerfield River, as well as numerous named and unnamed waterways. The Connecticut River and Deerfield River are nonnavigable waters in the project areas. In several locations along the railway route, the existing PAS Connecticut River Line is located adjacent to or over the Connecticut River and Deerfield River. An analysis of project effects on water resources was conducted, including a review of federal and state water quality and wetland regulations that could be applicable to the Project (see Appendix B). Mapped protected drinking water supply areas adjacent to and within the existing railway corridor were reviewed. As shown in Appendix B, the existing PAS Connecticut River Line crosses through one Interim Wellhead Protection Area1 in Northfield, two Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) approved Zone II2 Areas in Bernardston, one MassDEP approved Zone II Area in Greenfield, one Interim Wellhead Protection Area in Deerfield, and one MassDEP approved Zone II Area in both Whately and Hatfield. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact water resources and water quality. Proposed Project The Proposed Project’s change in service will not affect water resources. The physical improvements to the PAS Connecticut River Line will be within the existing right-of-way and within areas already covered with ballast, and do not include any in-water work, additional clearing, additional fill, or alteration of any drainage structure or waterway. Project activities are not anticipated to impact the mapped drinking water supply areas nor to have an effect on water quality, as (1) proposed activities will not require increased water usage and will therefore not have an impact on water supply, (2) project activities will not change groundwater or surface water flows, (3) no new stormwater outfalls are proposed nor are modifications to existing 1 Interim wellhead protection areas are identified for public water systems using wells or well fields that lack a MassDEP approved Zone II. The interim wellhead protection area is generally a one-half mile radius measured from the well or wellfield for sources whose approved pumping rates are 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) or greater. See 310 CMR 22.00 Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations. 2 Zone II is the area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated. It is bounded by the groundwater divides which result from pumping the well and by the contact of the aquifer with less permeable materials such as till or bedrock. See 310 CMR 22.00 Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 17 outfalls or headwalls proposed, and (4) proposed activities will be located within the existing maintained right-of-way and will not change existing drainage patterns. As Project activities will not require in-water work within the Connecticut River or Deerfield River, nor the need for new structures or modifications to existing structures over the Connecticut or Deerfield Rivers that might have the potential to impact the navigable capacity of the waterbodies, and all activities will be located within previously developed areas within the existing right-of-way, the Project should not be subject to a Section 10 filing under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or the General Bridge Act of 1946. As the Project is not likely to alter greater than 1 acre of land by “clearing, grading, and excavating”, coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) is not required. In the event that proposed activities do exceed the 1 acre threshold (described in Appendix B), a NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and a Notice of Intent will be filed in order to obtain coverage prior to Project construction. 3.1.3 Wetlands Wetlands and other waterways are protected by federal and state regulatory programs against impacts. Freshwater wetlands and waterbodies are mapped adjacent to and within the existing railway right-ofway, which extends through 11 communities (see Appendix B). Wetland and waterbody types mapped include open waters, intermittent and perennial streams and rivers, marsh and meadow systems, shrub swamps, and wooded swamps. The railway crosses over two major river systems: the Connecticut River and the Deerfield River. The Project does not cross or abut coastal zones. Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States”3. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131 § 40) (WPA) and implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00) is a state statute administered locally by the municipal Conservation Commission. The WPA requires the preparation of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for work within a wetland resource area or for work within 100 feet of certain wetland resource areas (i.e., the 100-foot Buffer Zone). In 1996 the Massachusetts Legislature passed the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act (Acts of 1996, Ch. 258). This law amends the WPA, and provides protection to rivers by regulating activities within a newly established wetland resource area known as the Riverfront Area. In most municipalities the Riverfront Area is 200 feet wide and is measured from each side of the river from the mean annual high water line outward horizontally and parallel to the river. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact any wetlands or waterways. 3 “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the federal regulations that implement the Clean Water Act. It includes tidal waters, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 18 Proposed Project Project activities will not result in any temporary or permanent impacts to wetlands, as Project activities will be located in previously developed areas located within the existing right-of-way. The Project does not involve placing any fill in wetlands or waterways, nor does it involve in-water work. As Project activities will not result in any temporary or permanent impacts to freshwater wetlands or waterways, a permit from the USACE under Section 404 is not required nor is water quality certification from the MassDEP. As no impacts to wetlands are anticipated, the Project is not expected to impact the hydrology of adjacent wetlands and therefore will have no impact on water quality of the wetlands. Portions of Project activities will likely be located within the WPA buffer zone to wetland resource areas and within previously disturbed Riverfront Areas. A Notice of Intent filing with the applicable Conservation Commissions (Northfield, Bernardston, Greenfield, Deerfield, Whately, Hatfield, Northampton, Easthampton, Holyoke, Chicopee, and Springfield) will be required for activities located either within resource areas or within their applicable buffer zones. 3.1.4 Floodplains Federal protection of floodplains is mandated by Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management” and by implementation of federal regulations under 44 CFR 9.00. These regulations direct federal agencies to undertake actions to avoid impacts on floodplain areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility for identifying flood-prone areas. There are FEMA designated floodplains in the project area. According to the Massachusetts GIS database, the existing PAS Connecticut River Line crosses over areas of the 100-year floodplain (see Appendix B). No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not create new impacts to 100-year floodplains. Proposed Project The Proposed Project’s physical changes do not include any additional fill material within waterways or floodplains, and therefore do not impact 100-year floodplains. The proposed station improvements at Northampton and Greenfield are not within the 100-year floodplain. 3.1.5 Noise and Vibration The proposed project has potential to change noise and vibration emissions from trains in the project area. The project would relocate the Vermonter to the PAS Connecticut River Line, thus adding one train northbound and one train southbound to the rail line daily. The project would also include various physical improvements to the rail line, allowing both the existing freight rail traffic and the new passenger trains to operate at faster speeds. One of the physical improvements, replacing the existing jointed rail with welded rail along the 49-mile corridor, would substantially reduce train wayside noise caused by wheels. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 19 Noise and vibration analyses were performed using guidelines published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FTA guidelines address noise and vibration from both passenger rail and freight rail operations, and are the accepted standard for train noise. The analyses evaluated noise and vibration from trains under existing and future conditions (see Appendix C). Train noise is a combination of horn noise and wayside noise. Horn noise comes from locomotive horns. Horns are required safety equipment and must be blown at certain at-grade crossings to warn motorists and pedestrians. Wayside noise is the noise the train makes in passing along the track. Wayside noise is louder with older jointed rails, such as are in use at the existing PAS Connecticut River Line. Modern rail systems use welded rail, which reduces wayside noise. Vibration as it relates to railway movements is generally caused by uneven interactions between the wheels of the train and the railway railway surfaces. Examples of this include wheels rolling over rail joints and flat spots on wheels that are not true. These uneven interactions result in vibration that travels through the adjacent ground. This vibration can range from barely perceptible to very disruptive. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not create additional noise impacts. The existing noise and vibration conditions on both the PAS Connecticut River Line and the current Vermonter route (CSX Boston line from Springfield to Palmer and NERC line from Palmer to East Northfield) would remain unchanged. Under the existing conditions on the PAS Connecticut River Line, freight trains travel at 10 mph on jointed track. Proposed Project Airborne Noise Assessment -The project team performed a Noise Screening Assessment and a General Noise Assessment in accordance with FTA guidelines to assess project-related airborne noise (see Appendix C). The FTA guidelines compare categories of land use against increases in noise exposure levels to identify impacts. The FTA methodology classifies land uses into three categories based on their sensitivity to noise. Each of these three land use categories has a corresponding noise impact threshold. Impact thresholds are categorized into two categories: moderate impacts and severe impacts. Moderate impacts are described as noise level increases that are recognizable but not great enough to cause adverse reactions from the community. Severe impacts are described as noise level impacts where a significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise. For the purpose of the General Noise Assessment, the PAS Connecticut River Line was separated into nine segments. The nine segments were selected to represent a range of existing noise conditions throughout the corridor. Six of the segments include the urban areas along the right-of-way. Two segments are areas where roadways are very near the rail right-of-way and their noise is assumed to dominate the ambient acoustic environment. The final segment consists of all the remaining areas, mostly rural, not included in the other segments. Table 3.1.5-1 presents the number of receptors meeting the FTA criteria for noise impacts per project segment. The table shows analysis results including severe and moderate noise impacts for each of the three land use categories used by FTA. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 20 Table 3.1.5-1 Noise Impacts Project Segment FTA Land Use Category Number of receptors meeting FTA criteria for noise impacts Severe Impact Moderate Impact Greenfield Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 44 Category 3 0 3 Deerfield Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 4 Category 3 0 2 South Deerfield Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 14 Category 3 0 0 Northampton Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 30 Category 3 0 1 Holyoke Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 21 Category 3 0 1 Springfield Area Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 1 Category 3 0 5 Northampton Road Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 22 Category 3 0 1 Mt. Hermon Station Road Category 1 0 0 Category 2 1 4 Category 3 0 0 Rural Category 1 0 0 Category 2 1 49 Category 3 0 1 Total 2 203 Analysis results project a total of 205 noise receptors with noise levels meeting FTA criteria for impacts due to the proposed project: 203 moderate noise impacts and 2 severe noise impacts. Both of the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 21 severe impacts result from horn noise where a Category 2 receptor lies very near an at-grade highway/rail crossing. Of the moderate impacts, 14 were impacts to Category 3 receptors and the remaining 189 were to Category 2 receptors. Based on the linear extent of the proposed project, and the number of urban areas it passes through, the number of moderate noise impacts is not unusual. There are no impacts to Category 1 receptors. Figure 3 in Appendix C shows the locations where noise impacts are predicted to occur. Vibration Assessment -A Screening Vibration Assessment and General Vibration Assessment were prepared in accordance with FTA guidelines “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (May 2006) to estimate the number of potential ground-borne vibration impacts created by the Proposed Project (see Appendix C). A Screening Vibration Assessment was performed to determine if any vibration-sensitive land uses exist within FTA’s fixed, default vibration screening distances. Results of the screening assessment confirmed the presence of vibration-sensitive land uses within FTA’s screening distances; therefore a General Vibration Assessment was performed. The General Vibration Assessment methods were used to evaluate vibration from existing freight, and future freight and passenger trains in the project corridor. Under existing conditions on the PAS Connecticut River Line, freight trains travel at 10 mph on jointed track. The Proposed Project will result in freight trains traveling at 40 miles per hour (mph) and a passenger train moving at 60 mph, both on welded track. The FTA recognizes three land use categories for assessing general vibration impacts. • Land Use Category 1 – High Vibration Sensitivity: This category includes buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for operations within the building that may be well below levels associated with human annoyance. Typical Category 1 land uses include vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, facilities, hospitals, and university research operations. Category 1 also includes special land uses, such as concert halls, television and recording studios, and theaters, which can be very sensitive to vibration and ground-borne noise. The FTA has developed special vibration levels for these land uses. • Land Use Category 2 – Residential: This category includes all residential land uses and any building where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. • Land Use Category 3 – Institutional: This category includes schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. Table 3.1.5-2 summarizes the potential vibration impacts associated with the proposed project. Figure 3 in Appendix C shows the locations where ground-borne vibration impacts are predicted to occur. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 22 Table 3.1.5-2 Potential Vibration Impacts Land Use Category Number of Receptors meeting FTA Criteria for Vibration Impacts 10 mph Freight Scenario (Current Conditions) 60 mph Passenger Scenario (Proposed Project Conditions) Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 98 Category 3 0 2 Special Buildings 0 @65 VdB* 0 @80 VdB 1 @65 VdB 0 @80 VdB *VdB = vibration decibels (VdB), a measure of the strength of the vibration per FTA and FRA (see Appendix C). As Table 3.1.5-2 indicates, the existing 10 mph freight train on jointed track is predicted to result in no ground-borne vibration impacts. The 60 mph passenger train on welded track would potentially affect ninety-eight (98) receptors in Category 2, two (2) receptors in Category 3 and affect one (1) Special Building (a TV studio). Although Category 1 land uses were identified during this assessment, none fall within the distance to calculated vibration impact threshold. Based on the limited number of train pass-by events under the Proposed Project, the potential vibration impacts at Category 2 and Category 3 land uses are considered acceptable under FTA guidance. The potential vibration impact at the television broadcast studio can be mitigated by installing track-based mitigation measures like resilient track fasteners or resilient ballast mats. Additionally, a Detailed Vibration Assessment could be performed during final design to identify the most appropriate trackbased mitigation measure. Noise and Vibration Benefit – The Proposed Project includes two noise and vibration benefits. First, the project would improve the existing PAS Connecticut River Line by replacing the existing 49 miles of jointed rail with welded rail, resulting in less wheel noise. Second, there would also be a noise and vibration reduction along the existing Vermonter route. Moving the Vermonter off of the existing route from Springfield to Palmer (CSX rail line) and Palmer to East Northfield (NECR rail line) would reduce the daily train traffic by one train each way, thereby reducing noise and vibration to local receptors. Noise and vibration analyses described in this environmental assessment do not quantify the benefit to receptors along the current route of relocating the passenger service to a different project corridor, yet the benefit is recognized to occur. Mitigation – The Proposed Project will create increases in train noise levels for some receptors that exceed FTA thresholds for noise impacts; two receptors will experience noise level increases that exceed the threshold for a severe impact. The two noise level increases that exceed the threshold for a severe impact will occur near highway/railat-grade crossings where locomotive horns are used. For these two impacts, quiet zones were considered as a potential mitigation measure. The FRA issued the Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 23 Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in June 2005. This Rule states that a train crew must sound the locomotive’s horn when approaching a grade crossing. In addition to requiring that train horns must be sounded, the FRA Rule provides a methodology for establishing, maintaining, and enforcing “Quiet Zones”. Quiet Zones are areas of at least one-half mile of track where locomotive horn use is prohibited and alternative safety measures are implemented to preserve public safety, although train crews are still permitted to sound the horn within a Quiet Zone for railroad-related reasons or for safety reasons. Quiet Zones are regulated by FRA, and municipalities are responsible for coordinating their creation with FRA and other agencies in accordance with FRA rules. Mitigation for the Proposed Action may include the use of supplemental and/or alternate safety measures at grade crossings in proximity to the two receptors with severe impacts in order to qualify for a Quiet Quiet Zone. The applicability of such safety measures and a Quiet Zone designation for the at-grade crossings where horn noise would create a severe impact would be determined during project final design. Train noise impacts predicted to occur in areas outside of highway/rail at-grade crossings have fewer options for mitigation. Noise walls can provide shielding and reduce train noise levels to rows of homes immediately adjacent to the project area. Typically noise walls are only effective at shielding the first row of homes. To be effective, noise walls must be continuous (no openings or breaks) and must extend past the first and last receiver in the row of homes adjacent to the rail line. The project area was reviewed to determine if noise walls could provide adequate shielding and reduce train noise levels at receptors predicted to experience train noise impacts under the proposed project. Results of that review concluded that noise walls would not be effective at reducing train noise levels in the project area. Many of the receptors anticipated to receive noise levels that exceed FTA criteria for moderate impacts are isolated, without other impacted receptors close by. Constructing a noise wall for a single receptor is not practical. There are some small groupings of noise receptors anticipated to receive noise levels that exceed FTA criteria in Greenfield and Holyoke. However, the presence of nearby highway/rail at-grade crossings would require multiple breaks in any noise wall, which in turn compromises its performance. Therefore, noise walls are not considered a reasonable or feasible noise mitigation option for the project area. The potential for altering train speeds through the project area was also considered for its potential to reduce train noise levels. Faster moving trains take less time to pass by and therefore, receptors have reduced exposure periods to train noise. Allowable train speed for a location is based on track conditions and layout, congestion, and other safety parameters. Currently, Currently, trains move slowly through the project area, causing longer exposure times for train-induced noise levels. The Proposed Project, with its extensive physical improvements to the PAS Connecticut River Line, will result in increased speed for freight trains (from 10 mph to 45 mph) and speeds of 60 mph for the Vermonter. These increased operating speeds will have a noticeable effect on exposure periods to train noise. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 24 3.2 Biological Environment 3.2.1 Ecological Systems The Project route passes by and over a range of habitats, including woodlands, rivers, water bodies, and emergent and forested wetland systems, some of which are mapped habitat for state-listed species and a limited number of federally-listed species. The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) is implemented by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife -Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). MESA protects rare species and their habitats by prohibiting the "take" of any plant or animal species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. As part of MESA implementation, NHESP is responsible for reviewing projects and providing and maintaining maps that identify protected species habitat. Shown on these maps are two types of protected species habitat: Priority Habitat for State Protected Species and Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife. Priority Habitat includes habits for wetland and non-wetland wildlife and plant species. Estimated Habitat includes habitat for wetland dependent wildlife (animal) species only and is intended for use by both NHESP and local Conservation Commissions during the review of projects subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. According to the NHESP database, both the current Vermonter route and the Proposed Project route are adjacent to mapped Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat (see Appendix D, Figure 1) and cross mapped habitat in several municipalities. The entire length and width of the Connecticut River is mapped Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would have no new impact on protected species habitat. The Vermonter would continue to travel along existing rail right-of-way that passes through or adjacent to protected habitats. Proposed Project Project activities will be located within previously disturbed and cleared areas within the existing maintained maintained right-of-way of the PAS Connecticut River Line and no impacts to vegetated areas are proposed. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a take and the need for a Conservation and Management Permit under MESA. 3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species The purpose of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by both the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly for marine wildlife such as whales and anadromous fish species. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 25 Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means that a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means that a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The ESA protects endangered and threatened species and their habitats by prohibiting the “take”4 of listed animals and the interstate or international trade in listed plants and animals, including their parts and products, except under federal permit. Two federally-listed endangered species have been identified as occurring in the Connecticut River: the Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). See Appendix D for further information on the federally-listed endangered species. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would have no new impact on rare species, federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or state-listed species or designated protected species habitat. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would occur within the existing disturbed areas of the PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way; therefore, no new impacts to identify threatened or endangered species or their habitats are anticipated. As both identified federally endangered species are likely to exist solely within the Connecticut River, and no in-water work within the river is proposed, project activities are not anticipated to affect federally endangered species. Further consultation with the USFWS may be necessary if it is determined that a federal permit is required (e.g., Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit or U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Act permit) with subsequent Section 7 consultation. At this time, however, consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated for the reasons noted above. 3.3 Human Environment 3.3.1 Transportation Rail Transportation and the Regional Roadway Network The three major north-south corridors within the study area include include the NECR rail line, Connecticut River Line railway, I-91, and the Connecticut River. The Vermonter operates between St. Albans, VT to Washington, D.C., providing one daily round trip. Within the study area, the Amtrak Vermonter travels east from Springfield to Palmer on the CSX Boston line, then north to East Northfield on the NECR line, stopping in Amherst (PVPC RTP, 2007). This service 4 Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Through regulations, the term “harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Listed plants are not protected from Take, although it is illegal to collect or maliciously harm them on federal land. Protection from commercial trade and the effects of federal actions does apply for plants. In addition, states may have their own laws restricting activity involving listed species, as Massachusetts does. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 26 route is about 60 miles long and requires additional mileage and travel time due to the 55 mph speed limit and need to reverse direction in Palmer. In 2008, ridership was estimated to be about 72,655 passengers on this route. In addition to passenger rail, the route also handles north-south freight operations. The CSX line is the largest ton-mile freight line in Massachusetts. The PAS Connecticut River Line operates from Springfield to East Northfield, through the communities of Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield. Current freight train traffic on the line between Greenfield and Springfield consists of seven trains per day. The PAS Connecticut River Line is 49 miles. Current track conditions restrict train speeds to 10 mph. This rail line is currently only used for freight movements. The PAS Connecticut River Line was previously used for passenger rail transportation, and stations still exist within Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield, MA. I-91 provides north-south south access to Vermont and Connecticut. The basic highway network including interstate highways, U.S. numbered routes and state routes, along with other traffic arteries, provides access to all municipalities in the region, both urban and rural. The pattern of principal arterial highways in the region is radial, extending outwards from each of the region's major centers, a consequence of development and topographic influences. Traffic projections for Pioneer Valley indicate that regional VMT will continue to increase by an additional 1.3 percent per year from 2003 to 2010, 2.2 percent per year from 2010 to 2020 and 3.6 percent per year from 2020 to 2030 in Pioneer Valley (PVPC RTP, 2007). The Connecticut River is the longest river in New England stretching 410 miles from its source to the sea. The river is bounded by four New England states -New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts as it flows south to Long Island Sound. It was the nation’s first large river developed for transportation and is is one of the few large, developed rivers in the US without a port city at its mouth. Historically, north-south transport on the river was by ice sled, canoe, flatboat, log raft, and eventually steam boat. The river became famous for its log drives and the innovative precision manufacturing that took place along its banks. Today the river is still used for shipping as well as for hydrological projects, ferry operations, and recreational activities. In 1998 the Connecticut River was one of the 14 American Heritage Rivers designated by President Clinton, due to its historic and cultural significance to the nation (Connecticut River Watershed Council, 2009). No-Build Alternative The No-Build alternative would not create new impacts to freight or passenger rail transportation. Amtrak’s Vermonter service would continue to use the congested CSX Boston line from Springfield to Palmer. Under the No-Build alternative, traffic on I-91 and regional/local roadways would continue to increase over time. The Vermonter would continue to service the Amherst area which has a low population density, with a cluster of 525,000 people near the I-91 and NECR corridor. The No-Build alternative would not be consistent with Pioneer Valley’s objective to develop balance in the regional transportation system or encourage congestion friendly alternatives to automobile travel such as public transportation, ridesharing, bicycling and walking (PVPC, 2007). Proposed Project The Proposed Project would have a positive impact on passenger rail transportation by offering new service between White River Junction, VT and Springfield, MA on the PAS Connecticut River Line. The PAS Connecticut River Line travels through more densely populated areas including Northampton, Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 27 Holyoke and Springfield. These areas are quite large in comparison to Amherst and have population densities of about 150,000. Projected annual ridership as a result of the proposed project would be about 116,000 annual passengers by 2015. The Proposed Project would also have a beneficial impact on freight movements between Massachusetts and Connecticut. Improvements to the PAS Connecticut River Line would result in faster, more cost-effective freight operations, and are anticipated to increase freight rail traffic as shown in Table 3.3.1–1. Table 3.3.1–1 Train Traffic on the PAS Connecticut River Line Current Proposed Freight Trains Daytime trains (7AM – 10 PM) 7 9 Nighttime trains (10PM – 7AM) 2 2 No. of Locomotives 1 or 2 1 or 2 No. of Cars 20-40 20-50 Speed (mph) 10 40 Passenger Trains Daytime trains (7AM – 10 PM) 0 2 Nighttime trains (10PM – 7AM) 0 0 No. of Locomotives 0 1 No. of Cars 0 5 Speed (mph) 0 60 Improvements to the track along this route would provide an opportunity to improve the freight service along the entire PAS Connecticut River Line. More efficient track operations would likely encourage some freight trucking shippers using I-91 and I-90 to switch to rail transport, thereby reducing environmental and other impacts of truck transport and the need for future maintenance and repair along regional roads. Projections for completion of the Project indicate that there will be one additional freight train operating on the PAS Connecticut River Line and that by 2030, freight traffic will increase by 50 to 100 percent. Freight train speed will increase from 10 mph to 40 mph. Amtrak trains will travel at about 60 mph. Freight travel times may change slightly to allow for Amtrak travel on the Connecticut River line, but this would not negatively affect overall freight service. The increase in average speed and number of cars per train coupled with track improvements would result in more efficient freight operations. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 28 The Proposed Project would have a positive impact on vehicular transportation in the I-91 corridor by offering an alternative to the private automobile for commuters, residents and tourists. The Proposed Project would reduce congestion, thereby resulting in travel cost savings, as well as decreasing the potential for traffic incidents. Existing bus service within the study area would facilitate north/south travel between communities to reach proposed rail stations in Northampton and Greenfield, MA. Current bus service would provide public access to reach proposed transit stations. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) red and blue lines provide daily bus service along I-91, from Northampton to Holyoke continuing to Springdale, MA. A PVTA bus stop currently exists at the intersection of Pleasant Street and Railroad Avenue. This intersection has a pedestrian crosswalk and would require passengers to walk a few hundred feet to the existing rail station. Franklin County Transit Authority (FCTA) provides bus service from Greenfield to Northampton via the Valley Route line, also operating daily. This route would require a transfer on to a PVTA bus line to reach the bus stop located at Pleasant Street and Railroad Avenue. Both Greenfield and Northampton have identified plans to expand bus service in their municipal transportation plans in order to further facilitate inter-modal transportation. Enhancing rail service in the study area would be consistent with Pioneer Valley’s goal to plan a coordinated, multimodal, environmentally sound transportation system which moves people and goods safely, dependably, and efficiently (PVPC, 2009). Local Vehicular Transportation PVPC RTP goals identify the need to address traffic congestion problems on local roads by providing alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles rather than constructing additional roads or lanes. The roadway mileage in the Pioneer Valley has remained fairly consistent over the last several years. In contrast, traffic on the region's roadways has been increasing. The magnitude of increase is shared in the region's rural areas as well. The increase in vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT) is the result of a regional and nation trend in increased vehicle ownership and decreased vehicle occupancy rates (Regional Transportation Plan for Pioneer Valley, 2007). Generally speaking, this puts more single occupant vehicles on the roadway system, thus, increasing the total VMT daily. Based on information from the 2000 Census, about 20 percent of residents work outside of their county of residence and spend an average of 20 minutes driving in each direction. Nearly 75 percent of all work trips in the Pioneer Valley are made via the single occupant vehicle. The remaining 25 percent of travelers carpool to work, followed by commuters that walk to work and bus riders (see Figure 3.3.1-1) (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3). Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 29 Figure 3.3.1-1 Commuting in the Project Area Many communities in the Pioneer Valley area currently provide multi-use paths or “rail trails” totaling 17 miles in the region, with more projects under design with MassHighway. The six completed bike paths in the region include the Norwottuck Rail Trail, Springfield Connecticut River Walk & Bikeway, the Amherst-UMass Connector Bikeway, the Amherst Bi-Walk, the Easthampton Manhan Rail Trail and the Northampton Bike path (2007 RTP). The city of Northampton is currently completing construction of their bicycle and pedestrian path, which will connect to the Northampton Station, to further facilitate multi-modal transportation in the study area. Bus service currently runs along Route 9, through the cities of Northampton and Amherst, MA. The Minute Man Express provides express weekday service every half hour from University of Massachusetts to Smith College, while the University is in session. The Red line provides year-round service seven days a week, about 45 times daily on weekdays and 25 times on weekends (PVTA, 2007). The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority also offers a “Rack and Roll” program which provides bicycle racks on transit buses to further provide opportunities for multi-modal travel in the area. Therefore, existing public bus systems would provide service for residents living in Amherst and travelling to Northampton for Amtrak service. Two new stations are proposed for Northampton and Greenfield, MA. The Northampton location would utilize the existing railroad station and parking area with upgrades to the station platform. The proposed future inter-modal hub on King Street would facilitate travel to and from the railroad station (King Street Corridor Study, 2003). The Greenfield station would be located at the proposed multimodal hub on Bank Row utilizing the old Toyota dealership on Olive Street. The City of Greenfield will not construct a new parking lot and plans to use the adjacent parking garage for visitors to to the Bank Row shopping area and Garden Cinema. (Greenfield Redevelopment Authority, 2009). Northampton and Greenfield have identified inter-modal hubs in their future land use plans. Northampton implemented a policy to work with PVPC to consider a centralized public transit or multimodal facility in Northampton on King Street adjacent to the PAS right-of-way (City of Northampton, 2005). The Greenfield Redevelopment Authority also identified a future site for an inter-modal hub on King Street in close proximity to the existing railroad station (Greenfield Redevelopment Authority, 2009). The availability of bus service and proposed addition of a multi-modal hub for commuters in the region would likely decrease single-occupancy vehicular travel in the study area. Drive Alone Carpool Bus Train Work at Home Walk Other Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 30 The General Plans of Northampton, Greenfield and Amherst also identify goals to enhance bus service. Enhanced bus service will compliment the planned inter-modal hubs and railroad stations in Northampton and Greenfield which would reduce the need for single-occupant automobile travel to the proposed stations. The addition of transit stations would likely change traffic patterns on local roadways due to travelers accessing and parking at stations. However, the two proposed locations for stations, associated parking and necessary access are consistent with existing and future land use plans as well as existing and future regional and local transportation plans. The location of stations would provide service to the maximum number of users including major activity nodes and housing concentrations. It is assumed in this analysis that passengers living within 1.0 mile of a station would walk to the station. Passengers living outside a 1.0 mile distance would likely take some other form of transportation, either public or private, to access the station. Therefore, the primary impacts of relocating a station are felt by the population within 1.0 mile of the station; those living outside the 1.0 mile distance are still affected, but generally at a lesser level of inconvenience depending on the additional driving time. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not change local vehicular transportation or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Within the study area I-91 traffic volumes are projected to steadily increase, especially north of Northampton and south of Springfield at the Connecticut State line (PVPC, 2007). The PVPC RTP identified that I-91 in Northampton experienced the highest average increase in highway volume, 40 percent, between 1993 and 2003. Over time, vehicular congestion would continue to increase resulting in potential need to repair and maintain local roads. In addition, The No-Build Alternative would not be consistent with the goals and objectives identified by PVPC and in municipal General and Transportation Plans for development of a multi-modal transportation system within the study area. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would be consistent with the PVPC goal to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Figure 3.3.1-2 illustrates population densities within close proximity of the current and proposed stations. The Proposed Project would increase a to passenger rail stations by relocating the stations to population centers in Northampton and Greenfield, and creating the potential for a future station in Holyoke. Based on 2000 U.S. Census data (projected to 2003) there are approximately 12,400 people living within 1.0 mile of the Northampton station and 8,800 living within 1.0 mile of the Greenfield station. In addition, there are currently 17,200 people living within 1.0 mile of the Holyoke station. Passengers currently using the Amherst stati be required to reroute their trip to the Northampton station, about 8 miles away. There are about 6,400 residents living within a one-mile radius of the Amherst station. Residents outside this area likely use transit or private automobiles to travel to the Amherst station, especially during the winter months. Automobile travel to the new stations would likely require east travel on Route 9 from Amherst to Northampton station service areas. PVTA provides bus serve along Route 9 connecting Amherst to Northampton while FCTA provides bus service along Route 5 connecting Greenfield and Northampton. PVTA service continues in to Holyoke and Springfield, MA. Both Greenfield and Northampton have identified plans to expand bus service in their municipal transportation plans in order to further facilitate inter-modal transportation. Enhanced passenger rail service would provide residents with transportation options beyond the private automobile for intra-region and inter travel. With encouragement municipalities in the study area have outlined a plan and policy related actions and projects multi-modal travel. These improvements would minimize the need for residents to drive to rail stations and reduce the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter access station would el east-west st inter-region from PVPC, the to enhance 31 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 32 number of vehicles on regional and local roads by serving more communities along the PAS Connecticut River Line. Therefore, the Proposed Project and rerouting of Amherst riders would not adversely impact local traffic patterns. There are 38 crossings along the NECR line between St. Albans, VT and Springfield, MA. Along the PAS Connecticut River Line, 37 crossings exist between St. Albans, VT and Springfield, MA. Because the proposed project is located within existing right-of-way, relocation of the Vermonter will not result in additional new crossings of regional or local roads. As part of the project, grade-crossings would be improved on the PAS Connecticut River Line to facilitate safe and efficient travel throughout the study area. Proposed track improvements will increase efficiency and speed of rail operations; as a result, wait time at each crossing would decrease under the Proposed Project. 3.3.2 Land Use and Zoning In recent years, the Pioneer Valley has experienced sprawl without population growth. Between 1970 and 2000, the population in the Pioneer Valley increased by less than 5 percent, while at the same time, total developed land in the region increased by 49 percent. In the 1990s the region’s population remained relatively stable while about 40,000 acres of farm land was developed for commercial or residential use (PVPC, 2009). In 1997 the PVPC decided to revisit regional land use and promote smarter growth strategies. In 2000, Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) passed Executive Order 418, to guide planning funds for all Massachusetts communities to help promote opportunities to build vibrant communities while linking housing with economic development, transportation, and open space and resource protection (EOHED, 2009). The Pioneer Valley RTP continues to support strategies and projects that promote livable communities, provide for the efficient movement of people and goods and advance the economic vitality of the the region. Land use goals identified in the plan aim to incorporate the concepts of sustainable development in the regional transportation planning process. The study area lies within the boundaries of Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties. Franklin and Hampden Counties are mostly rural with a sparse population and large geographical area. Hampshire is more densely developed with a greater population density. The northern portion of the Knowledge Corridor is less densely developed than land along the southern portion, especially between Northampton and Springfield, MA. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue indicates that an average of 75 percent of land within the study area is zoned for residential use. However, zoning designations adjacent to and within a half-mile of the PAS Connecticut River Line vary by community. Municipalities within the study area have demonstrated support of regional goals by encouraging multi-modal transportation within their boundaries and guiding land use development towards transit-oriented development (Pioneer Valley Transportation Plan, 2007). Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 33 Springfield Springfield is a densely developed city bordered by the Connecticut River on the east. Land-use west of the PAS Connecticut River Line consists of a mixture of Commercial/Retail, Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation, Industrial and Residential lands adjacent to the PAS Connecticut River Line rightof-way and continuing further out about a half-mile. East of the alignment, across the Connecticut River, land use is largely residential with some Commercial/Retail and Industrial development at the southern most portion of the city. See Figure 3.3.2–1, Springfield Land Use, for further detail. Holyoke Holyoke is generally an equal mix of Industrial and Commercial/Retail east and west of the PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way. Within about a half-mile in either direction of the right-of-way, zoning consists of Industrial and Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation with a cluster of residential development to the east. Further east, across the Connecticut River development consists of Residential, Industrial and Forest/Agricultural/Recre ational use. See Figure 3.3.2–2, Holyoke Land Use, for further detail. Northampton Northampton land use adjacent to the PAS Connecticut River Line is generally industrial west of the right-of-way and residential east of the right-of-way. The eastern portion of the area is less densely developed than the western portion which has a large amount of residential and Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation development. As the rail line exits the city towards Greenfield, land use changes to a cluster of Industrial and Commercial/Retail use. See Figure 3.3.2–3, Northampton Land Use, for further detail. Greenfield Within Greenfield, the southern portion of the right-of-way is largely Forest/Agricultural/Recreational on the east side of the alignment with some Residential and Commercial development to the west. As the alignment enters the center of the city, land use adjacent to the railroad is a mix of residential, commercial and Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation. As the corridor continues north of the proposed station, land use becomes largely residential with a small amount of commercial and industrial use immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. Once the rail line crosses Route 2 into the more developed portion of Greenfield, land use changes to General Industry directly east and west of the right-of-way. See Figure 3.3.2–4, Greenfield Land Use, for further detail. Springfield Station CSX Berkshire Sub PAS 291 91 91 I-91 I-291 Main St Dwight St Carew St State St E Columbus Av Union St Pine St W Columbus Av Plainfield St Taylor St Liberty St Birnie Av Armory St Worthington St Maple St Mill St Chestnut St Stafford St Pearl St Chapin Te Longhill St Albany St Fisk Av Lexington St Franklin St Federal St Springfield St Riverside Rd Middle St Locust St Bond St Oak St Florida St High St Wason Av Wait St Eddy St Kendall St Nottingham St Walnut St Bowdoin St Fort Pleasant Av Miller St Bridge St Mayfair Av Massasoit St Jardine St Clyde St Rowland St Littleton St Prospect St William St West St Abbe Av Mulberry St Wilber St School St Avocado St Grover St Knollwood St Lowell St Central St Lancashire Rd Bancroft St Elliot St Wilcox St Orchard St Lincoln St Parallel St Congress St Willow St Napier St Phoenix Te Atwater Te Bliss St Melha Av Atwater Rd Newland St Marble St Belmont Av Parkside St Croyden Te Hastings St Governor St Clantoy St Leete St Sumner Av Hyde Av Calhoun St Mooreland St Dale St Washburn St Warwick St Adams St Woodmont St Clinton St Pembroke St Boylston St Stockman St Patton St Clayton St Leyfred Te Sanderson St Temple St Everett St Genesee St Dover St Griffin St Ingersoll Gr Palmer Av Cedar St Medical Center Dr Edgeland St Howard St Harriet St Avon Pl Arch St Acushnet Av Bay St Cunningham St Osgood St Cleveland St Home St Church St Morgan St Caseland St Waverly St S End Br Loring St Broad St Pratt St Boland Wy Harrison Av Atwater Pl Langdon St John St Cornell St Spruceland Av Warner St Court St Hebron St Cornwall St Shefford St Grant St Memorial Br Fort St Ringgold St Belle St York St Nursery St Hannon St Grosvenor St Van Buren Av Cumberland St Allendale St Ledyard St Ramp Agnew St Gridiron St Grove St Tracy St Glen Rd Sullivan St Noble St Nye St Wolcott St Mill River La Cherryvale Av Leslie St Arlington Ct Ellen St Division St Halsey St Sterns Te Elm St Montmorenci St Crescent Hill Warriner Av Whiting St Derby Dingle Sheldon St Mc Bride St Mayo St Saint George Rd Pynchon St W York St Saab Ct Dineen St South St E Fisk Av Ingraham Te Main St I-91 W Columbus Av Armory St Nursery St I-291 Legend Springfield Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Other Rail Water Land Use Residential Developable Land -Residential Undevelopable -Residential Commercial/Retail Developable Land -Commercial Undevelopable -Commercial Industrial Developable Land -Industrial Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation Forest/Agricultural/Recreational Land Use Unknown 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.2-1 Springfield Current Land Use Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Holyoke Station CABOT STREET MAPLE STREET HIGH STREET DWIGHT STREET APPLETON STREET PLEASANT STREET BEECH STREET PINE STREET SARGEANT STREET LYMAN STREET ELM STREET LINDEN STREET MAIN STREET CHESTNUT STREET OAK STREET RACE STREET ESSEX STREET SOUTH STREET INTERSTATE 391 JACKSON STREET LOCUST STREET SUFFOLK STREET NONOTUCK STREET SYCAMORE STREET SOUTH CANAL STREET HAMPSHIRE STREET PEARL STREET LINCOLN STREET NORTH CANAL STREET CLEMENTE STREET NORTH BRIDGE STREET MOSHER STREET HAMPDEN STREET CHAPIN STREET TAYLOR STREET BROWN AVENUE BOWERS STREET ROUTE 202 CENTER STREET WINTER STREET SOUTH BRIDGE STREET ALLYN STREET JEFFERSON STREET SOUTH ELM STREET RESNIC BOULEVARD SOUTH SUMMER STREET SAINT JEROME AVENUE BERKSHIRE STREET BEACON AVENU E COMMERCIAL STREET WEST STREET LENOX ROAD CRESCENT STREET DAVIS STREET CANAL STREET OXFORD ROAD WEST FRANKLIN STREET SAINT KOLBE DRIVE TEMPLE STREET CLEVELAND STREET FRONT STREET WELLESLEY ROAD BIGELOW STREET GARFIELD STREET VALLEY HEIGHTS STEBBINS STREET SCHOOL STREET CHARLES STREET IRVING STREET KAY AVENUE JOHN STREET NORTH SUMMER STREET VASSAR CIRCLE LOG POND ROAD OLIVER STREET GRANT STREET THORPE AVENUE LADD STREET CHASE AVENUE INTERSTATE 391 Legend Holyoke Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Other Rail Land Use Residential Developable Land -Residential Undevelopable -Residential Commercial/Retail Developable Land -Commercial Undevelopable -Commercial Industrial Developable Land -Industrial Undevelopable -Industrial Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation Vacant -Institutional Forest/Agricultural/Recreational Land Use Unknown 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.2-2 Holyoke Current Land Use Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation 91 Northampton Station Prospect St Hockanum Rd Kings Hwy State St Bridge Rd Damon Rd Nook Rd West St North St Bridge St -Route 9 Old Springfield Rd Old Ferry Rd King St -Routes 5 & 10 Hunts Rd Conz St Jackson St Elm St -Route 9 Mount Tom Rd -Route 5 Fair St Curtis Nook Rd South St-Route 10 Earle St Rainbow Rd Lyman Rd Barrett St Industrial Dr Vernon St Franklin St Island Rd Prospect Ave Grove St Pynchon Meadow Rd Venturers Field Rd Walnut Trees Path Pleasant St -Route 5 Texas Rd Round Hill Rd Massasoit St Fair St Ext Hawley St Fort St Williams St Hatfield St Cross Path Rd Market St Crescent St Elm St Cooke Ave Oxbow Rd Olive St Parsons St name unknown Water St Potash Rd First Square Rd College Ln Strongs Rd Fruit St Woodlawn Ave Laurel St Gothic St Main St -Route 9 Bradford St Forbes Ave Middle Meadow Rd Danks Rd East St Union St Riverbank Rd Maynard Rd Washington Ave Crosby St Orchard St Day Ave Parsons Swamp Rd Gleason Rd Old South St Henry St Roe Ave Center St Henshaw Ave Green St Paradise Rd Manhan Rd Bancroft Rd Cherry St Summer St Carlon Dr Moser St Ridgewood Ter Harrison Ave Musante Dr Elizabeth St Atwood Dr Lincoln Ave Olander Dr Norfolk Ave Butler Pl Kensington Ave Bates St Holyoke St Burts Pit Rd Stoddard St Bright St Linden St Lower College Ln Terrace Ln Allison St Hampton Ave Winthrop St Woodmont Rd Pilgrim Dr Arlington St Fairview Ave Rust Ave Denise Ct Marshall St Fort Hill Ter Prince St-Route 66 Valley St Smith St Bedford Ter Cedar St Church St Winter St Eastern Ave Hayes Ave Rotary Fifth Ave Charles St Washington Pl Taylor St Tyler Ct Wilson Ave Alley Access Button St Edgewood Ter Lawn Ave Alley Prospect St name unknown Oxbow Rd Legend Northampton Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Water Land Use Residential Developable Land -Residential Undevelopable -Residential Commercial/Retail Developable Land -Commercial Undevelopable -Commercial Industrial Developable Land -Industrial Undevelopable -Industrial Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation Forest/Agricultural/Recreational 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.2-3 Northampton Current Land Use Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation !( Greenfield Station 91 91 I-91 High St Elm St Hope St Davis St Wells St Colrain Rd Federal St Lower Rd Chapman St Conway St Wisdom Way Main St Deerfield St River Rd Keets Rd Greenfield Rd Colrain St Laurel St Riverside Dr Mountain Rd Upper Rd Birch St Maple St Cleveland St Petty Plain Rd River St James St Meridian St Pogues Hole Rd Riddell St Beech St Beacon St Silver St Mohaw k Trl Allen St Smith St West St Norwood St M ill St Pierce St Parkway St Vernon St Phillips St School St Cumberland Rd Hastings St Round Pond Rd Old Ferry Rd Woodard Rd Lincoln St Sanderson St Haywood St Fairview St E Montague City Rd Franklin St Peabody Ln Grove St Bears Den R d Shattuck St Cheapsid e St She lburne Rd Devens St Washington St Nash's Mill Rd Prospect St Highland Ave College Dr Orchard St Columbus Ave Thayer Rd Union St Forest Ave Grinnell St Kenwood St Place Ter Cedar St Pleasant St Clark St Fairview St W Linden Ave Pond St North St Alden St Warner St Spruce St G reat Pond Rd Cypress St Cook St Sp ring Ter Abbott St Walnut St Park Ave Washburn Ave Miner St Gerrett St Oa k Cts Barr Ave Water St Russell St Munson St Miles St Bank Row St Arch St Kimball Dr Meade St Pine St Jingle H ill Rd Newton St Holly Ave Hall St Solon St Tulip Ln Woodleigh Ave Willow St State Hi ghway 2 Wisdom Pl Locus St Ames St Conway Dr Carol Ln Charles St Linwood St Madison Ci r Standish Ct Power Ct Oak St George St Prentice Ave Western Ave Temple Ave Osgood St Briar Way Box Shop Rd Sears Ave Wilson St Barber Ave Bowker St Cross St Marshall St Grant St Bowles St Tyler Pl Cedar Gln Euclid Ave Dickinson St Bonneville Ave Spencer Ct Main St North St Russell St 2 Legend !( Greenfield Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Other Rail Water Land Use Residential Developable Land -Residential Undevelopable -Residential Commercial/Retail Developable Land -Commercial Undevelopable -Commercial Industrial Developable Land -Industrial Undevelopable -Industrial Institutional/Public Facilities/Conservation Forest/Agricultural/Recreational 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.2-4 Greenfield Current Land Use Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 38 East Northfield As the PAS Connecticut River Line travels through Northfield, the corridor is surrounded by forest/agricultural/recreational land. A small amount of residential development is scattered through this portion of the study area. Amherst Approaching Amherst, the NECR corridor travels through mainly Forest land and continues north through low-density residential and crop lands. As the alignment moves through the middle of Amherst, land use becomes medium-density residential with a small portion of multi-family residential use. Land use returns back to forest land and low-density residential development as the alignment continues north and exits the city. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact land use or require acquisition of property in the study area. The No-Build Alternative would be compliant with current zoning, but would not further the regional and local goals to provide an alternative to automobile travel and promote transit-oriented development. Proposed Project Changes to service resulting from the Proposed Project would not affect land use, zoning, or property acquisition within the study area. Because the Proposed Project will utilize land along the active PAS Connecticut River Line corridor, zoning is currently consistent with rail activity and would not require changes to support the Proposed Project. The relocation of the Vermonter would change the travel route of Amtrak in to Springfield. The zoning of the area adjacent to the PAS Connecticut River Line is zoned for industrial, commercial and business use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in change to land use or zoning within the City of Springfield. Track improvements would occur entirely within the PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way and would not require changes to land use or zoning designations within the study area. Proposed stations would not negatively affect land use or require significant changes to zoning in the study area. The proposed proposed Northampton station would not require land acquisition because it will use the existing station located off of Railroad Avenue with updates to the station platform. The City of Northampton has also identified a potential site for a future intermodal hub located on King Street to serve commuting residents. In Greenfield, the rail station would be integrated into the soon to be built intermodal station. The Greenfield intermodal station will be located at Bank Row in an area identified for redevelopment. The Proposed Project and proposed station locations would support transitoriented development and are consistent with local and regional land use plans. Potential Benefits The realignment of rail service along the Knowledge Corridor has the potential to provide beneficial economic development impacts for the cities along the corridor that will have station stops as well as the broader region. PVPC (2009) conducted an assessment of the economic development potential related to rail improvements, specifically the potential for development (see Appendix E) created by Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 39 enhanced passenger rail service and adding commuter rail service. The assessment estimates incremental economic development due to passenger rail; i.e., that additional economic and demographic growth beyond baseline growth forecast for the region. A summary of the key findings of the economic development analysis includes: • Enhanced service will most likely have the greatest impact in Northampton due to the characteristics of the city, while the other station cities are expected to incur greater development impacts from Commuter level service. • The development impacts in 2015 are likely to be significantly smaller than those in 2030, due to the amount of time it generally takes for development to occur as well as the necessary time for the region to overcome its broader development and growth obstacles to fully leverage the benefits of rail. • While the impacts may seem relatively large, when they are compared to the expected baseline employment and population in in each of the cities and “rest of county” areas, the impacts attributable to the rail service are actually relatively modest, not exceeding 5% of the total for any area in the commuter scenario, and are less for the enhanced scenario. These economic estimates are consistent with the region’s broader set of development initiatives (with rail being one component of broader plans). The induced job and population growth potential related to rail could help the region become more in line with growth in the rest of Massachusetts, and is consistent with the state’s efforts to boost economic opportunities in Gateway Cities. • The economic risk modeling estimates that there is a 90% chance that the region as a whole can expect development impacts in terms of employment and population of at least 1,500 jobs and 3,000 new residents by 2030 under Enhanced service and at least 2,800 jobs and 6,300 residents under Commuter service. The Proposed Project does not include enhanced passenger rail service (defined as increased frequency of service) or commuter rail service. However, the improvements to the PAS Connecticut River line and the relocation of the Vermonter passenger rail service to the line opens the door for enhanced rail service and commuter rail service which would otherwise not occur. The improved rail service along the Knowledge Corridor is anticipated to provide employment and population impacts, the level of which will depend upon many factors, including the level of service, the timeframe in which the service is restored, and the region’s ability to leverage rail improvements. 3.3.3 Property Acquisition The PAS operates the PAS Connecticut River Line from Springfield, MA through Greenfield, MA continuing to the New Hampshire state line. Proposed activities would take place entirely within the PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way. No additional right of way is required. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 40 No-Build Alternative There would be no additional right of way acquisitions and no relocations or displacements of property owners resulting from the No-Build Alternative. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would not affect property ownership within the study area. Rail facility updates and improvements would occur within the existing PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way. The existing Northampton station and associated parking would be used with updates to the station platform and would not require property acquisition. Similarly, the proposed Greenfield station would be located on property owned by the city which purchased the land in 2009 for the purpose of developing the site as a regional transportation center. Therefore, construction of these two stations would not require property acquisition. 3.3.4 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to incorporate consideration of environmental justice into their planning process. The executive order prohibits federal financial assistance for programs and activities that use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Its goal is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 defines minorities as individuals of American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic racial heritage. Minority populations are defined as those where either (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Within the project area municipalities (as listed in Table 3.3.4-1), minority populations make up between 1.3 and 18.3 percent of the population. In comparison, minority populations make up about 1.6 percent of the population in Franklin County, 7.3 percent in Hampshire County and about 20 percent in Hampden County. The City of Springfield, located in Hampden County, has the largest minority population in the study area with about 26.9 percent of residents from African American decent (U.S. Census, 2000). The average employment rate for municipalities in the study area, 62 percent, is slightly lower than the average employment rate of 66 percent for Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden Counties. Similarly, the average income for residents in the study area, $36,000, is slightly lower than the counties’ average income of $40,000 annually (U.S. Census, 2007, PVPC 2009). Within the three counties, low income populations are about 9.4 percent in both Franklin and Hampshire and 14.7 percent and Hampden County. In comparison, the percent of the population living below the poverty level for municipalities in the study area range from lowest 5.0 percent in Northfield to highest 26.4 percent in the City of Holyoke, located in Hampshire County. The City of Holyoke’s high poverty level can be attributed to the city’s population decline, high percent of rental properties, higher than average vacancy rate, and high percent of subsidized housing within the city (Holyoke, 2009). The City of Holyoke has implemented an Action Plan in conformance with HUD to address the needs of low and moderate income persons. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 41 Table 3.3.4–1 Racial/Ethnic Distribution and Poverty Level City Percent Minority Population Percent of People Below Poverty Level Northfield 1.3 5.0 Greenfield 4.7 14.0 Northampton 7.4 9.8 Holyoke 7.9 26.4 Springfield 32.9 12.4 Amherst 18.3 20.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices PCT49, PCT50, PCT51, PCT52, PCT53, PCT54, and PCT55 and Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrices P3 and P4. The Proposed Project’s primary ability to affect environmental justice populations is through change of service. It is assumed that populations within 1.0 mile of a station have direct access to passenger rail without requiring other modes of transportation. Passengers outside a 1.0 mile radius would likely use other transportation (local bus service, private vehicle, etc.) to reach the station. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not have additional disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or low income populations. Passenger rail service service would continue to be provided from a single station at Amherst. No passenger rail stations would be provided at Greenfield, Northampton, or Holyoke. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would result in a change of service – access to passenger rail service would be relocated from the single station at Amherst to two new stations at Greenfield and Northampton. Access is improved for residents of Greenfield and Northampton. Residents of Amherst would have to travel to Northampton (the closest station) to access the Vermonter. In addition, residents along the PAS Connecticut River Line would experience an increase in train traffic. There are environmental justice populations; English proficiency, low-income and/or minority, located within about 0.5 miles of the PAS Connecticut River Line in Northampton, Holyoke and Springfield. The relocation of the Vermonter would add one passenger train to the existing PAS Connecticut River Line. Freight trains are currently operated along this rail corridor; therefore, the addition of passenger rail would not disproportionately affect community facilities or alter neighborhoods where minority populations could potentially reside. Amherst does have an environmental justice population of low-income and minority residents with about 20 percent of residents living below the poverty level. U.S. Census data indicates that about 5 percent of the population in Amherst uses public transportation for inter-regional and intra-regional travel (U.S. Census, 2007). Figure 3.3.4-1 shows environmental justice populations in the vicinity of the Amherst station. The Proposed Project would require residents using Amtrak service to reroute their trip to Northampton to reach the relocated rail station. The distance between Amherst and Northampton is only about 8 miles along Route 9, which is currently serviced by PVTA bus service. The Amherst Master Plan indicates that the city will be improving bus facilities to provide year-round, daily, Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 42 express bus service north-south to link downtown and other points on the route with other village centers. In addition, east-west service will be improved to connect outlying neighborhoods with local service shuttle loops or flex routes. Only a minor portion of the population in Amherst would lose direct access to passenger rail – most of the environmental justice population in Amherst (as well as other Amtrak passengers) live outside the 1.0 mile distance from the station and already take other transportation modes to access the Vermonter. Relocating passenger rail service to stations in Northampton and Greenfield would benefit the environmental justice populations in those cities, in particular those populations within 1.0 mile of the stations (see Figures 3.3.4–2 and 3.3.4–3, respectively). Similarly, Northampton and Greenfield both have plans to incorporate intermodal facilities with development of railroad stations. The Proposed Project would benefit residents by providing additional public transportation services between communities, employment and shopping centers, and recreational amenities. The Proposed Project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on environmental justice populations; instead, it will have an overall benefit to environmental justice populations in Greenfield and Northampton. Existing and planned public transportation between Amherst and Northampton will provide adequate access to the Northampton station for residents of Amherst. !( NECR S East St N East St Main St Mill Ln N Pleasant St E Pleasant St S Pleasant St Strong St University Dr College St Amity St Lincoln Ave Snell St Norwottoch Bicycle Path High St Belchertown Rd E Hadley Rd Fearing St Stanley St Sunset Ave Northampton Rd Triangle St Eastman Ln Gray St Old Farm Rd Thatche r Way Columbia Dr Dana St West St Spring St Chestnut St Tilson Farm Rd Cottage St Massachusetts Ave Hills Rd Commonwealth Ave Les sey St Farview Way S tockbridge Rd Woodside Ave Gover n ors Dr Blue Hills Rd Hop Brook Rd Justice D r N Whitney St Amity Pl Red Gate Ln Clark Hill R d W Pelham Rd Jeffrey Ln Village Ln Kestrel Ln Taylor St Kellogg Ave McClellan St Salem Pl Eames Ave Hillcrest Pl Willow Ln The Hollow Orchard St Boltwood Ave N Prospect St Memorial Dr Sellen St Railroad St Orchard Hill Dr Oly m pia D r Baker St Elm St Shumway St Maple w ood Dr Fair field St Phillips St Eames Pl Arbor Way Dickinson St Tamarack Dr Hazel Ave Fraturnity Dr Pine Grv North Whitney St McClure St Villag e Park Rd Hedgerow Ln Berkshire Ter Harvard Ave Gaylord St Brigham Ln Wildwood Ln Kendrick Pl Matoon St Campus Center Way Dana Pl Cosby Ave Allen St Spaulding St Cowles Ln P r es id ents Dr Grove St Crown Point Hunters Hill Cir Pokebe rr y Ridge Chestnut Ct Merrill Ct Walnut St Pease Pl Valley Ln S Sunset Ave Legend !( Amherst Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station NEC Railroad (Central Vermont) Other Rail Environmental Justice Populations Income Minority Income/Minority Income/Minority/Foreign-Born 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.4-1 Amherst Environmental Justice Populations Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation NOTE: Environmental Justice Data from Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), based on 2000 U.S. Census datalayers. 91 Northampton Station PAS Prospect St Hockanum Rd Kings Hwy State St Bridge Rd Damon Rd Nook Rd West St North St Bridge St -Route 9 Old Springfield Rd Old Ferry Rd King St -Routes 5 & 10 Hunts Rd Conz St Jackson St Elm St -Route 9 Mount Tom Rd -Route 5 Fair St Curtis Nook Rd South St-Route 10 Earle St Rainbow Rd Lyman Rd Barrett St Industrial Dr Vernon St Franklin St Island Rd Prospect Ave Grove St Pynchon Meadow Rd Venturers Field Rd Walnut Trees Path Pleasant St -Route 5 Texas Rd Round Hill Rd Massasoit St Fair St Ext Hawley St Fort St Williams St Hatfield St Cross Path Rd Market St Crescent St Elm St Cooke Ave Oxbow Rd Olive St Parsons St name unknown Water St Potash Rd First Square Rd College Ln Strongs Rd Fruit St Woodlawn Ave Laurel St Gothic St Main St -Route 9 Bradford St Forbes Ave Middle Meadow Rd Danks Rd East St Union St Riverbank Rd Maynard Rd Washington Ave Crosby St Orchard St Day Ave Parsons Swamp Rd Gleason Rd Old South St Henry St Roe Ave Center St Henshaw Ave Green St Paradise Rd Manhan Rd Bancroft Rd Cherry St Summer St Carlon Dr Moser St Ridgewood Ter Harrison Ave Musante Dr Elizabeth St Atwood Dr Lincoln Ave Olander Dr Norfolk Ave Butler Pl Kensington Ave Bates St Holyoke St Burts Pit Rd Stoddard St Bright St Linden St Lower College Ln Terrace Ln Allison St Hampton Ave Winthrop St Woodmont Rd Pilgrim Dr Arlington St Fairview Ave Rust Ave Denise Ct Marshall St Fort Hill Ter Prince St-Route 66 Valley St Smith St Bedford Ter Cedar St Church St Winter St Eastern Ave Hayes Ave Rotary Fifth Ave Charles St Washington Pl Taylor St Tyler Ct Wilson Ave Alley Access Button St Edgewood Ter Lawn Ave Alley Prospect St name unknown Oxbow Rd Legend Northampton Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Water Environmental Justice Populations Income Minority 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.4-2 Northampton Environmental Justice Populations Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation NOTE: Environmental Justice Data from Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), based on 2000 U.S. Census datalayers. !( Greenfield Station 91 PAS 91I-91 High St Elm St Hope St Davis St Wells St Colrain Rd Federal St Lower Rd Chapman St Conway St Wisdom Way Main St Deerfield St River Rd Keets Rd Greenfield Rd Colrain St Laurel St Riverside Dr Mountain Rd Upper Rd Birch St Maple St Cleveland St Petty Plain Rd River St James St Meridian St Pogues Hole Rd Riddell St Beech St Beacon St Silver St Mohawk Trl Allen St Smith St West St Norwood St M ill St Pierce St Parkway St Vernon St Phillips St School St Cumberland Rd Hastings St Round Pond Rd Old Ferry Rd Woodard Rd Lincoln St Sanderson St Haywood St Fairview St E Montague City Rd Franklin St Peabody Ln Grove St Bears Den R d Shattuck St Cheaps i de St Shelburne Rd Devens St Washington St Crescent St Nash's Mill Rd Highland Ave College Dr Orchard St Columbus Ave Thayer Rd Union St Forest Ave Grinnell St Kenwood St Place Ter Cedar St Pleasant St Clark St Fairview St W Linden Ave Pond St North St Alden St Warner St E Cleveland St Spruce St Great Pond Rd Cypress St Cook St Spring Spring Ter Abbott St Walnut St Park Ave Miner St Gerrett St O ak Cts Barr Ave Water St Miles St Bank Row St Arch St Kimball Dr Pine St Jingle H ill Rd Newton St Holly Ave Park St Hall St Solon St Tulip Ln Willow St Olive St State H i g hway 2 Wisdom Pl Locus St Ames St Conway Dr Leonard St Rugg Pl Cabot St Pra y Dr Charles St French King Hw y Sullivan Ln Linwood St Madison Cir Standish Ct F ort S q Power Ct Oak St Southern Ave Chestnut Hill George St Prentice Ave Western Ave Temple Ave Osgood St Silver Pl Green St Briar Way Box Shop Rd Sears Ave Forbes Ct Wilson St Barber Ave Bowker St Marshall St Grant St Bowles St Maple Ln Cedar Gln Euclid Ave Dickinson St Bonneville Ave Greenway Ln Main St Shelburne Rd North St Gerrett St Legend !( Greenfield Station 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Other Rail Environmental Justice Populations Income 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.3.4-3 Greenfield Environmental Justice Populations Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation NOTE: Environmental Justice Data from Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), based on 2000 U.S. Census datalayers. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 46 3.3.5 Public Health and Safety The existing PAS Connecticut River Line has 22 public and 11 private at-grade crossings within the study area. Of the 11 private at-grade crossings, 5 are “farm” crossings. Freight trains on the PAS Connecticut River Line operate at 10 mph. Similarly, the NECR line from Palmer to East Northfield through Amherst has 38 grade-crossings. Trains on the NECR line operate at 55 mph. The grade-crossings have various forms of control, from actively protected grade crossings predictor technology, such as gates and/or flashing lights, to passively protected crossings with railroad warning signs, such as crossbucks. The level of control required for each grade-crossing is determined by Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in accordance with FRA requirements. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not create additional impacts to public health and safety. No changes or upgrades would be made to either the PAS Connecticut River River Line grade-crossings or the NECR gradecrossings. Proposed Project The Proposed Project adds one train daily north and southbound on the PAS Connecticut River Line and reduces traffic by one train daily north and southbound on the NECR line. The PAS Connecticut River Line would be upgraded to allow increased train operating speeds (60 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight trains). The 22 public grade-crossings on the line would be upgraded to active predictor warning devices (flashing lights or flashing lights and crossing barriers). Grade-crossings would also be improved by replacing track, crossties, and roadway surface, providing a smoother crossing for both trains and motor vehicles. Massachusetts DPU would determine the level of active warning device necessary for each grade-crossing during final design. The private “farm” crossings will be secured with a locked gate and the 5 remaining industrial private crossings will have active warning devices similar to the public crossings. Grade crossings analysis will take into account the frequency of trains at grade crossings, volume of traffic, existing safety devices at grade crossings, and other factors to determine the potential safety impacts of an increase in rail traffic. Overall, the Proposed Project would improve public heath and safety by upgrading 37 grade-crossings with active warning devices. Also, by diverting some traffic from I-91, RT-9 and other local roads within the study area, the Project would likely reduce congestion and improve safety on the roads and highways. 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Hazardous materials may be encountered during the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Examples of common hazardous materials include total petroleum hydrocarbons, asbestos, and pesticides. Without proper handling, removal and containment, these materials can pose dangers to human health and the environment. Identifying known and potential contamination prior to construction is important because it can substantially reduce the possibility of exposure to people and the environment. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 47 Hazardous waste sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and by various state regulations managed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). No-Build The No-Build Alternative would not affect hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Proposed Project Physical improvements to the PAS Connecticut River Line will occur within the existing right of way. These improvements are primarily surface activities and do not involve large-scale excavations or subsurface activities. The likelihood of disturbing previously unknown hazardous materials or waste is small but cannot be ruled out. During construction, the contractor will comply with all applicable environmental rules and regulations. Activity associated with the Proposed Project will be conducted in accordance with applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and MassDEP regulations and permit requirements. The contractor will prepare a spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan that provides specific guidance for managing contaminated media that may be encountered in the right-of-way. If unknown contamination is discovered during construction, the contractor will follow the SPCC plan as well as all appropriate regulations. 3.3.7 Cultural/Historic Resources Historic and archaeological resources are protected under federal statutes and regulations including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800), which was created to support efforts to identify and protect sites, buildings, and objects that have historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) (known as “Section 106”) requires that federal agencies consider what effects their actions and actions they may assist, permit, or license may have on historic properties. Federal agencies undertaking project or issuing permits must consider potential impacts to cultural resources including all properties, sites, districts, and traditional cultural properties within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). Agencies must complete a formal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (in Massachusetts, the SHPO is the Massachusetts Historical Commission [MHC]), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested parties with regulatory standing. Due to the limited scope of work, the FRA, in consultation with the EOT, has defined the APE as limited to the right-of-way. Known historic properties within and in the vicinity of the APE were identified (see Appendix F). As part of the Alternatives Analysis process, a review was undertaken of known historic and archaeological resources located within 200 feet of the centerline of the right-of-way of the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter Project, extending from Springfield to East Northfield. The review included a compilation of all all assets listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places as well as the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (Inventory) maintained by the MHC. Copies of the State and National Register nominations were compiled in reports entitled: Historic Properties: Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter Project and Archaeological Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 48 Resources: Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter Project (2009). Both are available upon request from EOT. A list of the resources identified as part of this research effort is included in Appendix F. Any historic or archaeological resources within the right-of-way were buried, removed, or destroyed by the original railroad construction more than 160 years ago, as well as by subsequent construction and maintenance activities. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on historic or cultural resources. Proposed Project A review of known resources within and in the vicinity of the APE indicates the Project will have no effect on significant historic or archaeological resources. Sixteen bridges were identified in the review of historic resources along the proposed alignment. Proposed work on bridges is limited to in-kind repair or replacement of deteriorated existing bridge components (ties, steel, and bearings) within the existing right-of-way resulting in no effect to historic resources. The review of historic resources indicates grade crossing improvements will be undertaken in one National Register District in Hatfield and Inventoried Areas in each of the following communities: Holyoke, Whatley, Bernardston, and Northfield. Proposed work at all grade crossings is limited to track and roadway removal and replacement within the existing rights-of-way, and the removal and replacement of existing signals in the same locations resulting in no effect to historic resources. FRA will complete a formal consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission [MHC] regarding the determination of no effect on historic resources. 3.3.8 Section 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 49 USC 303 (Act) provides that the proposed use of land from any significant publicly-owned public park, recreational area, waterfowl or wildlife refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance will not be approved by the USDOT unless a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from that property. The Act also requires that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm that may result from such use. A “use” of a 4(f) property occurs when land is permanently taken or temporarily occupied. There can also be a “constructive use” (23 CFR 774.15) when “the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.5” The Proposed Project includes physical improvements to an existing rail line and a service change. The physical improvements all occur within the existing right-of-way of the PAS Connecticut River Line. The project will not use land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site. No Section 4(f) resources will be affected by the project. 5 23 CFR PART 774. Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites (Section 4 (f). March 12, 2008. These regulations implement 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303, which were originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and are still commonly referred to as “Section 4(f).” Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 49 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact any Section 4(f) resources. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would not impact any Section 4(f) resources and would therefore have a de minimis use of Section 4(f) resources. FRA will complete a formal consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission [MHC] regarding the determination of a de minimis use of a Section 4(f) resource. 3.4 Construction Impacts The Preferred Alternative would have impacts related to construction; these impacts would be of a relatively short-term nature. Standard specifications for all contracts will require the contractor to comply with and observe all applicable laws, regulations, and orders. Construction Phasing The project is anticipated to be constructed in phases. Potential phasing operations are described as follows. The first phase of construction would involve replacing the existed jointed rail with new welded rail, replacing crossties as needed, and reactivating passing sidings and a segment of double track. Bridge repairs would also be accomplished. The second phase would involve signal and communication upgrades, including improvements to all grade-crossings. The third phase would allow for the completion of miscellaneous construction work. More detailed construction planning will take place as preliminary and final design work is advanced. Only after more design is accomplished can precise definition of construction phasing be developed. Traffic Impacts It is expected that construction activities will create minor annoyances through temporary detours to access some businesses and residences, as well as local roadway or grade-crossing closings to accommodate construction activities. A maintenance-of-traffic (MOT) plan that defines measures to minimize impacts on traffic on existing roads will be developed during design. A requirement of this plan will be the need to maintain access to businesses and residences to the extent possible and to keep existing roads open to traffic unless alternate routes are provided. Design of the rail line improvements will be phased in such a way that rail service will be continuous. Overall, the impacts are expected to be temporary and minor. Air Quality Impacts Construction activities under the Proposed Project, typical of rail construction projects, would temporarily generate particulate matter (mostly dust) and small amounts of other pollutants. These emissions would be temporary and intermittent during the period of construction, and would contribute only a small amount to the total emissions in the project area. Emission standards prescribed under federal regulations will be controlled on construction equipment. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 50 Noise Impacts Construction of the project will create temporary increases in noise. Construction will be completed in phases, with each phase having its own noise characteristics depending on the types of equipment being used. Rail and track construction, for instance, will involve laying track. For the duration of the project construction, the most prevalent source of noise will be from engines. Utilities Railroad construction could require temporary relocation of utilities, such as electrical transmission. Appropriate coordination with local utility officials will occur in order to avoid any disruption to service to businesses or residents. Relocating transformers, which may be necessary as a result of the Project, will be performed by qualified personnel. Water Quality Impacts The Project is not anticipated to have construction impacts on water quality. There will not be any clearing or grading, there is no in-water work or other work affecting drainages or waterways, and no new impervious surfaces will be added during construction. The contractor will also be required to prepare temporary erosion and sediment control plan and a SPCC plan prior to initiating construction. Implementing these plans will minimize erosion effects, decrease the sediments entering receiving waters from the construction area, and protect against effects from harmful materials spills to streams. Freight Rail Traffic The proposed track improvements would occur within existing railroad right-of-way. Track rehabilitation would be performed according to best management practices and have minimal temporary impacts on existing freight rail operations during construction. These minor temporary impacts would cease upon completion of construction. 3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 3.5.1 Secondary Impacts Secondary impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the future or in the vicinity of but not at the exact same location as direct impacts associated with implementation of an action alternative. Under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, secondary impacts are defined as those that are “…caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. (40 CFR 1508.8b). Secondary impacts can be associated with the consequences of land-use development that would be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Secondary impacts differ from those directly associated with the construction and operation of a facility itself and are often caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced development”. Induced development would include a variety of alterations, such as changes in land use, economic vitality, property value, and population density. The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 51 potential for secondary impacts is determined in part by local land-use and development planning objectives and the physical location of a proposed action. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would result in a slight secondary impact. The lack of passenger rail service would reduce the economic competitiveness of the municipalities within the project area and would hinder economic development within the study area. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would result in secondary impacts by creating potential for economic growth within the study area and opportunity to pursue transit-oriented developments at the proposed Northampton and Greenfield station locations, and potentially at the Holyoke station location (not included as part of this project). The potential for transit-oriented development would support plans made by both cities to revitalize their respective downtown areas and create an activity center independent from automobile travel. It is more more likely that the Proposed Project would encourage transit-oriented development, which tends to make it easier for residents to live closer to destinations such as employment and shopping. A detailed economic analysis was conducted to identify the economic development potential related to rail improvements projected beyond the scope of this Project (see Appendix E). The two future scenarios examined for consideration of economic development impacts were Enhanced and Commuter Service. Enhanced passenger rail service assumes approximately 5 to 6 daily trains in each direction. Commuter service assumes providing more frequent service particularly during the morning and evening rush hours. Both of these scenarios are expected to generate induced economic development, and as can be seen in Table 3.5.1–1, aggregate results indicate a most likely result of about 2,700 jobs and 7,200 population in the Pioneer Valley by 2030 under the Enhanced scenario with just over 5,500 jobs and 13,400 population in the Commuter scenario. As shown, the economic development impacts are not immediate as the results are significantly lower for 2015, reflecting the time needed to fully realize and leverage the economic development opportunities provided by rail. Almost 70% of the job impact is in the four station cities (Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield) in the Enhanced scenario with 42% of the population effect, roughly consistent with current development patterns. The Commuter scenario has a slightly lower share of jobs and population in the four station cities as the effects are felt a bit more broadly throughout the region. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 52 Table 3.5.1-1 Summary Induced Employment and Population Results by Scenario Enhanced Commuter Employment Population Employment Population 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 Greenfield 32 128 61 243 80 321 159 634 Northampton 177 707 307 1,227 222 889 361 1,444 Holyoke 65 260 131 522 152 609 256 1,022 Springfield 189 754 250 998 378 1,510 502 2,006 Rest of Franklin County 38 153 187 746 99 396 451 1,802 Rest of Hampshire County 88 352 452 1,806 206 823 671 2,682 Rest of Hampden County 87 349 416 1,662 242 967 959 3,837 TOTAL 676 2,703 1,804 7,204 1,379 5,515 3,359 13,427 3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a resource, ecosystem, or community from past, present, and future actions that have altered the quantity, quality, or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. Under the CEQ regulations, cumulative effects are defined as “… the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or persons undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts – from federal, non-federal, public, or private actions – on the quality of a resource. The intent of the cumulative-effect analysis is to determine the magnitude of significance of cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the proposed action to those aggregate effects. Contributions to cumulative effects associated with the action alternative on the resources analyzed would be limited to those derived from the direct and secondary impacts of the action. The planned Hartford High Speed Rail Corridor Feasibility Study will look at establishing better connectivity and providing better transportation access to the Boston area. The study area corridor is 62 miles of existing rail line, which is owned and operated by The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), beginning in New Haven at Union Station, continuing through several towns and the cities of Meriden and Hartford, and ending at Union Station in Springfield, Massachusetts. This project would likely promote economic development in Springfield and Western Massachusetts. Relocation of the Vermonter onto the PAS Connecticut River Line creates the potential for a station at Holyoke. A station at Holyoke would provide economic development benefits for Holyoke plus improved access to passenger rail service. A station at Holyoke would also benefit environmental justice populations in that community (see Figure 3.5-1). Holyoke Station PAS CABOT STREET MAPLE STREET HIGH STREET DWIGHT STREET APPLETON STREET PLEASANT STREET BEECH STREET PINE STREET SARGEANT STREET LYMAN STREET ELM STREET LINDEN STREET MAIN STREET CHESTNUT STREET OAK STREET RACE STREET ESSEX STREET WALNUT STREET SOUTH STREET INTERSTATE 391 JACKSON STREET LOCUST STREET SUFFOLK STREET NONOTUCK STREET SYCAMORE STREET SOUTH CANAL STREET HAMPSHIRE STREET PEARL STREET LINCOLN STREET NORTH CANAL STREET CLEMENTE STREET NORTH BRIDGE STREET MOSHER STREET HAMPDEN STREET CHAPIN STREET TAYLOR STREET BROWN AVENUE BOWERS STREET ROUTE 202 WINTER STREET SOUTH BRIDGE STREET ALLYN STREET JEFFERSON STREET SOUTH ELM STREET RESNIC BOULEVARD SOUTH SUMMER STREET SAINT JEROME AVENUE BERKSHIRE STREET BEACON AVENU E COMMERCIAL STREET LENOX ROAD CRESCENT STREET DAVIS STREET CANAL STREET OXFORD ROAD WEST FRANKLIN STREET SAINT KOLBE DRIVE TEMPLE STREET CLEVELAND STREET FRONT STREET WELLESLEY ROAD NEWTON STREET BIGELOW STREET GARFIELD STREET NICK COSMOS WAY VALLEY HEIGHTS STEBBINS STREET SCHOOL STREET CHARLES STREET IRVING STREET KAY AVENUE JOHN STREET VASSAR CIRCLE LOG POND ROAD OLIVER STREET GRANT STREET THORPE AVENUE LADD STREET CHASE AVENUE INTERSTATE 391 Legend Holyoke Station PAS Railroad (Conn River Main Line) Other Rail 0.5-mile Distance to Station 1-mile Distance to Station Environmental Justice Populations Income Minority Income/Minority Income/Minority/English Proficiency 0 625 1,250 Feet ³ Figure 3.5-1 Holyoke Environmental Justice Populations Prepared By: Scale: 1 Inch = 1,250 Feet Knowledge Corridor -Restore Vermonter Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation NOTE: Environmental Justice Data from Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), based on 2000 U.S. Census datalayers. Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 54 Springfield is planning revitalization of the existing Springfield Rail Station to advance a transportation project that will potentially revitalize the station and the surrounding area. Springfield also conducted a study on bus service along the city’s Main Street to improve transit mobility within the city. Improved bus service would better serve the residents in Springfield and assist in the PVPC’s goal to provide alternatives to automobile travel in the region. Most areas adjacent to the PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way consist of higher-density development with mixed residential, business, institutional, and industrial space. This is especially true for Greenfield and Northampton, where stations are proposed. PVPC has worked with municipalities within the study area and actively promotes planning activities that support mixed use and transitoriented development to reduce dependency on automobile travel. While some municipal planning documents may not explicitly address rail transit on the PAS Connecticut River Line right-of-way, all the plans include public transit (bus, para-transit, and/or rail) in their land-use and transportation system plans and encourage transit-friendly development. The Proposed Project does not include enhanced passenger rail service (defined as increased frequency of service) or commuter rail service. However, the improvements to the PAS Connecticut River line and the relocation of the Vermonter passenger rail service to the line opens the door for enhanced rail service and commuter rail service which would otherwise not occur. EOT has developed a Service Development Plan for the Knowledge Corridor that considers the adding of additional trains to this line in the future. EOT recognized that further planning, negotiations with the other state partners, the railroads, and the identification of capital and operating funds is required before the additional service contemplated in the Service Development Plan is implemented. The improved rail service along the Knowledge Corridor is anticipated to provide employment and population impacts, the level of which will depend upon many factors, including the level of service, the timeframe in which the service is restored, and the region’s ability to leverage rail improvements. Regionally, the additional rail service provided by the potential relocation of the Vermonter would increase the number of passengers using transit, which would decrease the number of vehicle trips within the Pioneer Valley region between White River Junction, VT, and Springfield, MA, and into Connecticut. This would reduce vehicle miles traveled, congestion, and travel times throughout the region, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours. Furthermore, the reduction in vehicle miles traveled would improve mobility throughout Pioneer Valley, which would in turn support economic growth in the project study area and the region overall. Transit creates statistically measurable economic value for communities, and and these benefits extend to both transit users and non-users. This value appears in terms of increased land values and rents due to the demand for residential and commercial space in transit-oriented areas. The projected cumulative effect of transit projects on downtown and suburban economic development potential can be in the hundreds of millions of dollars (Lewis 2007). Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 55 4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION Coordination and consultation with agencies, stakeholder groups and the public was initiated early in the PVPC Study to incorporate comments and concerns into the development and analysis of the project purpose and need, alternatives and potential resultant environmental impacts. Coordination included stakeholder meetings, agency briefings, and public meetings presentations. Agency coordination included local government, state and federal agencies as appropriate. Because the study area extends to the Massachusetts state line, both north and south directions, agency outreach was extended to Vermont and Connecticut. Project coordination involved the following agencies and right-of-way representatives: • New England Central Railroad • Pan Am Railroad • CSX Railroad • Amtrak • Vermont Agency of Transportation • PVPC • EOT • Connecticut Department of Transportation • New England Association of Regional Councils (NEARC) In addition, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was invited to review and respond to material and findings generated by the Study. The TAC is composed of advisors to the project, including railroads, transportation providers, political representatives, government agencies, and major businesses. Participants in TAC activities included representatives of the following groups: • City of Holyoke Office of Planning and Economic Development • Amtrak • Pioneer Valley Transit Authority • Windham Regional • Franklin Regional Council of Government • Pioneer Valley Railroad • Office of Congressman John Olver • Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts • Pan Am Railway • Northampton Economic Development • Executive Office of Transportation Project meetings were held throughout the study process as indicated in Meeting TAC Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting TAC Meeting TAC Meeting NEARC Meeting TAC Meeting Public meetings for the study were held in Northampton and Springfield, MA and Bellow Falls, VT to ensure that input from residents in various locations is included in the project findings. In addition, a project website is set up to facilitate distribution of project updates, meeting notifications and collect comments on study activities. The PVPC is hos http://www.pvpc.org/corridor/in dex.html Public comments were collected at the meetings and received through mail and the above mentioned website. Figure 4.1 gives an overview of input received throu Figure 4.1 Project Support from General Public Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1 Project Meetings Date June 29, 2009 May 27, 2009 May 19, 2009 May 20, 2009 April 15, 2009 November 19, 2008 October 25, 2008 September 24, 2008 hosting the website at . through public involvement activities. 56 ing gh Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 57 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works Tim Doherty, Director of Rail Programs HDR Engineering, Inc. Ron OBlenis, Senior Rail Project Manager Carey Burch, Environmental Specialist/Senior Program Manager Tim Casey, Acoustics Program Manager Peter Mazurek, Senior Transit Planner Mike Parsons, Environmental Engineer Allison McGann, Rail Engineer Marissa Witkowski, Economist Karen Harrington, Environmental Engineer/GIS Specialist Dana Holmes, Environmental Planner Epsilon Associates Laura Rome, Associate Vincent E. Tino, CCM Senior Consultant Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Max Talbot-Minkin, Associate Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 58 6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST U.S. Federal Government U.S. Department of Interior Attn: Wilier R. Taylor Office of Policy and Compliance MS2340 M1B 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 U.S. Environmental Projection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Attn: Cynthia Giles OECA (2201A) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC. 20460 Federal Emergency Regulation Commission Environmental Evaluation Branch 825 North Capital Street, Room 7102 Washington, DC 20426 Federal Highway Administration Attn: Marlys Osterhues, HEPE 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Room E72-214 Washington, DC 20590 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 1 Office Attn: J.W. McCormack POCH/Room 442 Boston, MA 02109 USEPA New England Region 1 Attn: Tim Timmerman 1 Congress Street Boston, MA 02114-2023 Federal Aviation Administration Director, New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 Federal Railroad Administration Region 1 Office 55 Broadway, Room 1077 Cambridge, MA 02142 Federal Transit Administration Region 1 Office Transportation System Center Kendall Square 55 Broadway, Suite 920 Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Analysis Branch New England Division 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Attn: Mary Colligan One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S. Geological Survey MA-RI Water Science Center 10 Bearfoot Rd Northborough, MA 01532 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 10 Causeway Street Room 301 Boston, MA 02222-1092 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9587 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 59 U.S. Department of Agriculture 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 Massachusetts State U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 251 Causeway Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02114-2151 Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114-2104 USDA Forest Service Eastern Region -R9 626 East Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53202 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 Massachusetts Department of Housing and Economic Development One Ashburton Place, Room 2101 Boston, MA 02108 Massachusetts Division of Conservation Services Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 -5399 Vermont State John Zicconi, Director Vermont Agency of Transportation Planning Outreach & Community Affairs Division One National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 Local Government Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 26 Central Street, Suite 34 West Springfield, MA 01089-2787 Springfield City Government Office of Planning and Economic Development 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Holyoke City Government Office of Planning and Development One Court Plaza Holyoke, MA 01040 Northampton City Government Office of Planning and Development 210 Main St., Rm. 11, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Greenfield City Government Department of Planning and Development 14 Court Square Greenfield, MA 01301 Town of Amherst Office of Planning, Conservation and Inspections 4 Boltwood Avenue Amherst, MA 01002 Public Libraries Springfield Central Library 220 State Street Springfield, MA 01103 Holyoke Library 335 Maple Street Holyoke, MA 01040 City of Northampton Forbes Library 20 West Street Northampton, MA 01060 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 60 Greenfield City Library 402 Main Street #1 Greenfield, MA 01301 North Amherst Library 8 Montague Road Amherst, MA 01002 Other Entities Pan Am Southern Railroad Iron Horse Park North Billerica, MA 01862-1641 New England Central Railroad 2 Federal Street, Suite 201; St. Albans VT 05478-2003 Amtrak 60 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington DE 20002 CSX Transportation, Inc. 1 Bells Crossing Rd Selkirk, NY 12158-2131 Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 61 7.0 REFERENCES Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) 2000 Executive Order 419. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ehedterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1 =Community+Development&L 2=Community+Planning&sid=Ehed&b=terminalcontent&f=dhcd_cd_eo418_eo418&csid=Ehed Accessed August 16, 2009. Greenfield Redevelopment Authority 2004 Greenfield Development Plan www.townofgreenfield.org/1planoffic/redevelopauthority_members_planoffice.php City of Holyoke 2009 Consolidated Plan, Fifth Year Action Plan http://www.holyoke.org/index.php?option=c om_content&task=view&id=44 Accessed August 11, 2009. Executive Office of Transportation 2009 Knowledge Corridor Restore Vermonter, Springfield to East Northfield Massachusetts, Preliminary Engineering Design Report prepared by HDR Engineering. Lewis, David 2007 Implementation of New Starts and Small Starts Program. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. May 10. Accessed September 18, 2008. republicans.transportation.house.gov/media/file/testimony/highways/5-10-07-Lewis.pdf. Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2008 Percent of Parcels Designated as Residential Use. Massachusetts Department of Workforce Development 1999 Massachusetts --County GCT-P14. Income and Poverty in 1999 Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS) http://www.mass.gov/mgis/Accessed August 2009. City of Northampton 2005 Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan. http://www.northamptonma.gov/opd/Sustainable_Transportation/Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 2009 Draft Economic Development Analysis of Passenger Rail in the Knowledge Corridor 2009 Knowledge Corridor Passenger Rail Study Springfield to White River Junction. http://www.pvpc.org/corridor/index.html Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter 62 U.S. Census Bureau 2000 2005-2007 American Community Survey for Northfield, Greenfield, Northampton, Holyoke, Springfield and Amherst. Accessed August 11, 2009. 2000 Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices PCT49, PCT50, PCT51, PCT52, PCT53, PCT54, and PCT55 2000 Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrices P3 and P4. Accessed August 11, 2009. 2000 Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P53, P77, P82, P87, P90, PCT47, and PCT52. Accessed August 11, 2009. 2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Commuting Characteristics by Sex 2009 Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P26, P30, P31, P33, P43, P45, and P46 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US25&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-P12&-ds_name=DEC_2000_S F3_U&-format=ST-7