Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative
Stakeholder Meeting
October 22, 2014, 11:00 – 1:00 PM Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Springfield, MA Agenda
 Project Overview
 Upcoming Public Meetings
o White River Junction, Vermont on November 17, 2014
o Worcester, Massachusetts on November 19, 2014 
Overview of Initial Options 
Alternatives Definition 
Alternative Analysis 
Next Steps

Questions & Answers
Presentation
Ron O’Blenis (HDR) led a presentation that provided detailed information for each agenda topic. A
copy of the presentation will be made available on the project website. Attendees were both at PVPC
and on a Meeting Place conference call line. See Table 1.1 for attendees.
Questions and Comments
Layover Facilities


John Burnick (CTDOT) – What is the status with the layover facility in Springfield? Should
that be included as a Mass DOT facility?
o Ron O’Blenis – Yes, this is included in the MassDOT program. There will also be use
of the maintenance facility in New Haven. Have you confirmed with Connecticut that they have the facilities available? o Ron O’Blenis – Yes and we also assume that most maintenance work would happen in
Massachusetts.
October 22, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting
Stations
 Louis Baker (NHDOT) – Does this plan provide for direct, cross platform transfers between
trains? In other words, could a person traveling from the north transfer to a different train in
Springfield without having to go up and down flights of stairs?
o Ron O’Blenis – MassDOT is undertaking a comprehensive renovation of Springfield
Union Station which will enable more efficient passenger operations and easier access
for passengers. However, specific platform operational issues might not enable a direct
cross-platform transfer.
 Nate Miller (Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission) – Are all the
stations listed on the previous slide considered the final station list as far as the study is
concerned?
o Ron O’Blenis – Yes, including Claremont Station.
Train Sets
 What is a train set made of?
o Bill Lipfert (LTK) – The trains consist includes one PRIIA Section 305 Next
Generation Equipment Committee locomotive and seven coaches, similar to what are
currently being procured by the States of California, Illinois and Washington. The train
is assumed to have about 600 seats using single level coaches. There might be a
premium car and a café car. Although none of the NNEIRI alternatives will have a
maximum speed higher than 90 mph, the train will have the capability of operating at
125 mph for Northeast Corridor compatibility.
 Fred Nangle (MTA Metro-North) – Why do figures for train sets include such a large range?
o Bill Lipfert - Numbers could be tightened up to be more focused on the midpoint of
the range shown. But, we are at such an early stage and the current PRIIA, off-the­
shelf, production lines could be shut down at some point in the future. We want to
provide a range to enable us to understand the potential cost differences, especially if
an “off-the-shelf” procurement is not possible in the future.
Right of Way
 John Bernick (CTDOT) – What is the status of all of our services compared with these
numbers?
o Ron O’Blenis – The trains in the alternatives do not include the additional CTDOT
commuter trains. The added trains shown on the New Haven to Springfield section
and extended are the maximum 16 future trains planned in the Amtrak master
schedule that are shown going into South Station.
 Tim Brennan (PVPC) – Is the majority of the cost increases between Alts 1 and 2/3 associated with the CSX Line? o Ron – yes, that is the primary difference between Alternatives 1 and 2/3.
October 22, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting
 Marco Turro (CSX) - Looking at the numbers, it appears as if there’s limited upfront capital
cost for bridge improvements. We are worried that later capital costs for subsequent capacity
gains could be borne by the freight rail operators.
o Ron O’Blenis – We account for the increased costs of passenger rail in the
Alternatives on bridges in the Corridor. For example, Alternative 1 includes less
bridge work than Alts 2 and 3 because of the increase in passenger rail services of
these two alternatives assumes the need to fully restore a second mainline between
Worcester and Springfield.
 Marco Turro – We believe a passenger rail project such as this should not have any impact to
existing or future freight rail operations. If there are, we are We have concerns that if
passenger improvement are done first than the easier and less costly capacity improvements
will be chosen for the passenger service. Subsequent increases in freight volumes that
required additional capacity improvements would then be then be subject to paying a higher
cost for needed fearful that we will have to pay for these upgrades than would occur if the
potential added passenger rail had not be implemented.
o Ammie Rogers (MassDOT) – I would like to reiterate that we are always looking for
input from CSX. We would be pleased to discuss such issues. We have reached out to
CSX and have not received any input as to assumptions that are being considered as
part of our study.
o Marco Turro – We are not participating in this study, so my statements are only meant
to be generic, they are not specific to this project. We are currently just observers and
not participants in this process.
o Trevor Gibson (FRA) – We also understand this is a continued growth corridor for
CSX. The state did actually identify extra infrastructure that would be needed if no
passenger trains were added. There are significant freight benefits for this study as
well. We want to keep working with you. We are factoring in additional freight traffic
to this study.
 Serge Routhier (Quebec Ministry of Transportation) – I would be cautious about extension of
Vermonter to Montreal. No decision regarding this issue yet. CN is a private company and we
do not necessarily have the authority to invest in them.
o Karen Songhurst (VTrans) – We understand that there is no decision on the northern
side of this project. Part of the conversation moving forward will be between Amtrak,
the states, province and such. On Montreal Central Station, we have asked the federal
agencies repeatedly but have been told that we are not allowed to spend [federal] money
across the border, not even planning funds. This will have to be addressed later through
joint planning efforts by the collaborating jurisdictions (i.e. States, Province, Amtrak &
federal agencies). Vancouver, there is a discussion [about cross-border rail] happening
now. We anticipate a US-Canada preclearance treaty will enable this take place and
there’s work that’ll have to take place to enable Alt. 1.
October 22, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting
Signals
 Fred Nangle – Additional signalization infrastructure could be needed to accommodate
freight operations which have longer stopping distances.
o Bill Lipfert – The existing signal systems support freight train speeds of 40, 50 or 60
MPH, depending on line segment. The proposed increase of passenger train speeds to
as high as 90 MPH should not require respacing of existing signals because passenger
train braking distances are much shorter than freight train braking distances. Given the
track additions and State of Good Repair improvements needed, many signal locations
will change anyway.
Revenue and O+M Costs
 Tim Brennan – Do these revenue costs take into account revenue from express vs. local
services?
o Ron O’Blenis – Yes, these take those figures into account. Per Bruce Williams from
AECOM’s analysis of the system.
 Marco Turro – What type of compensation is included for host rail roads?
o Bill Lipfert – We included in Operation and Maintenance costs an amalgamation of
existing Amtrak host railroad payments to CN/CP/CSX/NECR.
o Marco Turro – If there is new infrastructure, these prices might not be sufficient to
compensate the host railroads.
o Ron O’Blenis – This is a nationwide discussion about compensation for freight
railroads and should be discussed at that level.
o Marco Turro – I agree, this is a nationwide discussion. My statement only applies to
the incremental track cost. In a program like this where there is additional
infrastructure, the numbers do not add up to support the additional passenger railroad
trains. I am speaking for freight railroads and not just CSX.
Ridership
 Marco Turro – Do these numbers include MBTA ridership?
o Ron O’Blenis – No, the MBTA is separate.
o Marco Turro – In other words, do you have a breakdown between riders that might
transfer from existing MBTA Worcester Line service to this service?
o Ammie Rogers – We can look at the Providence Line as an example and there is a
slight amount of diversion.
o John Weston (HDR) – We know there are some people who take Amtrak from
Providence to Boston rather than the MBTA. When the MBTA was having
performance issues on this line, there were more people doing it but since service
improved on the Providence Line, those numbers have decreased. But, there are some
people who are less price sensitive than others and they might opt to take the faster
trip. There is a considerable fare structure difference, so there is a penalty for those
riders.
o Karen Songhurst – Only smallest segment from Boston to Worcester would produce
cannibalization with the MBTA services.
October 22, 2014 Stakeholder Meeting
----- End -----
October 22, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting
Table 1.1: Attendance
Organization
Name
Capitol Region Council of Governments
Lyle Wray
x
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning
Commission
Richard Rydant
x
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
Jon Bernick
x
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
Carl Jackson
x
CSX
Marco Turro
x
Federal Railroad Administration
Trevor Gibson
x
Federal Railroad Administration
Michelle Fishburne
x
Federal Railroad Administration
Laura Shick
x
Federal Transit Administration
Kristin Wood
x
Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation
Ammie Rogers
x
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Alison Felix
x
MTA Metro-North
Fred Nangle
x
New Hampshire Dept. of Transportation
Shelley Winters
x
New Hampshire Dept. of Transportation
Louis Baker
x
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Tim Brennan
x
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Dana Roscoe
x
Quebec Ministry of Transportation
Serge Routhier
x
Southern Windsor County RPC
Katherine Otto
x
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning
Commission
Nate Miller
x
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Scott Bascom
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Karen Songhurst
AECOM
Jay Doyle
x
FHI
Jill Barrett
x
FHI
Eric Smith
x
HDR
Ron O’Blenis
x
October 22, 2014
SPG
TEL
x
x
Stakeholder Meeting
HDR
John Weston
x
HDR
Matthew Moran
x
LTK
Bill Lipfert
Transportation Planning and Resource Group
Astrid Glynn
x
Asset Performance Management, Inc.
Clare Conley
x
October 22, 2014
x
Stakeholder Meeting