NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND NTERCITY RAIL INITIATIVE
STAKEHOLDER MEETING
Springfield, MA
June 25, 2015
1.1
PARTICIPANTS
Amtrak

William Hollister
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)

Alan Anacheka-Nasemann
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC)

Rich Rydant
Connecticut Department of Transportation

Tom Maziarz

Jon Foster
CSX

Gina Clark
Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCG)

Linda Dunlavy

Maureen Mullaney
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Trevor Gibson

Kyle Gradinger

Jessie Fernandez-Gatti
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Nick Garcia

Kristin Wood
Le Ministere des Transports du Quebec (MTQ)

Serge Routhier
Office of State Senator Eric Lesser

Michael Clark
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
1
June 25, 2015
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Mass DOT)

Ammie Rogers

Tim Doherty
Metropolitan Transportation Authority: Metro-North (MTA)

Alexander Lu
New England Central Railroad (NECR)

Charles Hunter
New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT)

Shelley Winters
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)

Dana Roscoe

Tim Brennan
Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission

Katharine Otto
Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans)

Scott Bascom
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission

Nate Miller
Windham Regional Commission

Matthew Mann
Elected Representatives

John Olver (U.S. Congress, Retired)

Keith Barbegal (U.S. Congressman Jim McGovern’s Office)

Mary Jane Bacon – State Senator Rosenberg’s Office
Consulting Team

Matthew Moran (HDR)

Ron O’Blenis (HDR)

John Weston (HDR)

Alexander Tang (HDR)

Eric Smith (FH)

Bill Lipfert (LTK)
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
2
June 25, 2015

Jay Doyle (AECOM)

Jill Barrett (FH)

Jim Stoetzel (HDR)

Rob DiAdamo (TPRG)
1.2
INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION
Ron O’Blenis provided an introduction and agenda to the meeting. The agenda included:

Introductions

Project Background

Purpose and Need

Build Alternatives
o Alternative 1
o Alternative 2
o Alternative 3
o Recommended Alternative

Inland Route and BMHSR (Boston-Montreal High Speed Rail) SDPs (Service
Development Plans)
o Demand and Revenue Forecasts
o Conceptual Engineering
o Operating and Maintenance Costs
o Investment Options

Environmental Analysis

Next Steps

Discussion and Comments
Ron O’Blenis presented a PowerPoint overview of the Northern New England Intercity Rail
Initiative (NNEIRI); the PowerPoint presentation is attached. Questions and comments were
noted throughout the presentation and summarized in the following section.
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
3
June 25, 2015
1.3
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Alex Lu

Q: Which ends of the corridor are busiest in terms of ridership? Is it Montreal (MTL) to
St. Albans (SAB), Worcester (WOR) to Springfield (SPG), New Haven (NHV) and
south?

Ron O’Blenis: There’s a strong linkage between certain segments. The ridership is more
intercity in nature than commuter in nature. There are strong linkages between northern
Vermont and Montreal, the Connecticut River Valley and the Northeast Corridor, and the
Boston region to Connecticut.
Tom Maziarz

Q: Ridership for the NHV to SPG line and extensions beyond that that were done a few
years ago. What really struck me was the length of the average trip which was in the 8090 mile range. This was very different from what we’ve seen in typical numbers in our
instate commuter patterns.

Ron O’Blenis: Yes, the result of the modeling shows that most of the trips made are long
distance trips.
Matt Mann

Q: Intercity bus ridership, what was seen and what would come over to passenger rail.

Ron O’Blenis: As I recall, the comparison was not one to one, it was more general travel
demand that was modeled.

Jay Doyle: The model looked at trip planning in the corridor, it was an overall model as
opposed to a mode specific model.

Scott Bascom: Much of the ridership was not end to end, it was the intermediate station
stops.

Ammie Rogers: This was also why express service wasn’t successful. The majority of the
ridership would be looking to serve longer trips.
John Olver
Q: What you’re looking at is Amtrak service, correct?

Ron O’Blenis: The assumption is that this is intercity service, but we did not identify
operators as a part of this study.

John Olver: Amtrak is double tracking the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS)
Corridor. Is that on 79 MPH track? There’s also going to be a lot of commuter rail on the
same tracks? Will this all be 79 MPH double tracking?

Tom Maziarz: It varies depending on where you are. It is important to understand that CT
is looking at two different types of services: Intercity and also true Commuter Rail
services which will set the speeds. There will be a total of 25 round trips per day when
fully built out.
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
4
June 25, 2015

Jon Foster: Regarding double tracking, we are completing the double track from New
Haven to Hartford. A second segment of double track will continue from Hartford to
Windsor. Then there will be segments of single track to Springfield.

John Olver: Is that 79 MPH characteristics the idea?

Jon Foster: Currently the line is 79 MPH at it highest. However, there will be sections
that allow for 105-110 MPH future operations. Some sections will be up to high speed
standards.

Tom Maziarz: It won’t be continuous uniform speed limits all the way through on the
WOR to SPG segments either. We have a significant number of speed restrictions such as
curves and safety issues with crossings.

Trevor Gibson: Even though it’s being designed for 110 MPH, there will be stations in
between and due to acceleration and deceleration the train will only be able to attain 90
MPH. However, as the demand on the corridor continues to grow, there will likely be
services that reach 110 MPH where trains skip stations.

John Olver: My understanding is that the maximum speed is 79 MPH.

Ron O’Blenis: Expansion of second tracks will be necessary and we anticipate limiting
trains to 79 MPH.

Trevor Gibson: There is existing freight service on these lines. We also anticipate that the
freight carriers will grow. We want to incorporate this growth so they are part of the
planning effort. We are not just looking at one piece of the Corridor.

Ron O’Blenis: Gina Clark from CSX, thank you for calling in today, we welcome your
comments. We are certainly attempting to understand the different freight services and
making substantive considerations for freight growth and improvements.
Tom Maziarz

Q: I am trying to understand what the breakdown is on the frequencies and to get more
clarification of ridership numbers.

Ammie Rogers: NNEIRI services are broken down between Inland Route and BMHSR
trains. These services are divided between the two SDPs and are profiled in the
document.

Tom Maziarz: It’s expensive on just the Inland Route, but at the end of the day you’re
absorbing costs that are also on the Inland Route.
Alex Lu

Q: Is the business case for the two projects co-dependent?

Ron O’Blenis: There’s a sharing and a synergy between the two projects.

Ammie Rogers: Later we are going to get into details you might be interested in seeing.
We have laid out the projects so that it’s clear and independent. We have a logical phased
implementation.
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
5
June 25, 2015
Tim Brennan

Q: Commuting as opposed to intercity riders. I had heard 100 miles is the threshold
between two locations. Is that accurate?

Ron O’Blenis: This takes into account intercity passengers. Some will use it to commute.
Some commuters will use it two or three days per week coming from far distances. But,
at what point is that person an intercity rider vs. an intercity traveler? I don’t think it
matters much at that point. We don’t have daily work commute trips specifically taken
into account.
John Olver

Q: How do numbers add up for capital costs?

Matt Moran: The BOS to SPG section is shared between the two SDP’s and as a result,
that section’s cost is accounted for in both SDPs.

John Weston: It’s two separate SDPs so that one or the other could be implemented
individually as needed.
Tim Brennan

Q: Does this include Positive Train Control (PTC)?

Bill Lipfert: We are just under the threshold for passenger trains per day where the FRA
may consider a waiver. We are not assuming this improvement on the SPG to Canadian
border segment. PTC is under design and construction on the BOS-SPG and SPG-NHV
segments at present.
John Olver

Q: Would these grade crossings be replaced by grade separation?

Ron O’Blenis: The grade crossing warning device technology here gets out of date after a
certain amount of time. The changes would include updating these technologies.

Bill Lipfert: This would include active flashers and gates on public crossings as well as
equipping most crossings with constant warning time type circuitry to minimize gate
down time. Physical grade crossings would not have to be rebuilt.
Serge Routhier

Q: What is the maximum design speed of the locomotives assumed in the capital costs?

Bill Lipfert: The locomotives assumed in the capital costs, presently under construction
for the States of California, Illinois and Washington, can reach 125 MPH.
Tim Brennan

Q: Can “option” be read as “Phase”?

Ron O’Blenis: We had a debate about the word “phase.” We choose “investment option”
to imply that there are alternative means to arrive at this solution. This assumes that
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
6
June 25, 2015
service could be implemented over 20 years in a logical manner, but funding might not
let us arrive at this right away.

Tim Brennan: Is the recommendation to build all those pieces?

Ron O’Blenis: Yes, this would provide the maximum number of riders and serve the
region well. But, recognizing that each state has to participate, we understand that it is a
reasonable number.

Ammie Rogers: This is not to say that if all these options were not followed through with
you couldn’t start service. You could and it would be feasible.

Tim Brennan: What about Palmer?

Ron O’Blenis: Palmer is not a necessary component for the start of NNEIRI services but
as a part of this project we have identified potential sites for a station location. This
station location will be further refined with state and local officials.
Tom Maziarz

Q: What is the expectation that this could be followed through with from a funding
standpoint?

Ammie Rogers: This is a planning study so we are just examining feasibility, and trying
to understand what the demand would be. We are looking at the potential methods for
getting this project underway. Certain parts of this project could happen, some don’t have
to happen.
Mary Jane Bacon

Q: What happens if this project doesn’t make it all the way to Boston? We have a lot of
ridership that’s not a Boston-based connection

Ron O’Blenis: We don’t know what is going to happen in the future. We are still
evaluating these approaches. This aids in the environmental document that supports the
full build.

John Weston: There’s only a small part of the South Station project that supports and is
an enabler for this project. There’s the platform capacity, layover capacity, and other
elements.
John Olver

Q: Is there some quantitative number for layover vs trains doing the in-and-out in South
Station.

John Weston: There’s a whole team at South Station that’s doing this analysis. There’s a
lot of moving parts.

John Olver: Is there any available capacity at South Station

John Weston: Not during peak travel time, during off peak however, we can fit more
trains in.

Jim Stoetzel.: There is platform capacity during off peak. But, the bigger problem here is
where to put and service a couple train sets. It’s really tight in South Station.
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
7
June 25, 2015
Tim Brennan

Q: How is revenue calculated?

Ron O’Blenis: On a per passenger-mile basis, based on an average assessment of Amtrak
fares in the Northeast.
Tim Brennan

Q: Is there a public review for EA?

Jessie Fernandez-Gatti: FRA does not require a public review for EAs. As the
environmental process addresses, we have been receiving public comments for the entire
process, but it is not necessary for the overall process.

Q: Is there a public meeting held at the end?

Ron O’Blenis: Yes, but not necessarily as a way of presenting the EA. It will be more of
an informative meeting. Mid-September to early fall range.
Alan Anacheka-Nasemann

Q: Are you anticipating a comment period from the environmental permitting agencies? I
wanted to make sure you are starting to settle on Alternatives. We would want to make
sure that you are open to the 404 process. I have some comfort that existing infrastructure
is being used or restored. But, I wanted to make sure that if there is a big difference
between the alternatives regarding impacts to wetlands and other environmental
processes

Ron O’Blenis: We do not anticipate asking for any permits as a part of this process. This
is a Tier I service level EA and we anticipate the findings of this process being a report.
But, not as a part of the current stage of this study.
Meeting Concluded
NNEIRI Stakeholder Meeting
8
June 25, 2015