Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative
Stakeholder Meeting
May 7, 2014, 11:00 – 1:00 PM
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Springfield, MA
Agenda
Project Outreach

Response to Previous Stakeholder Comments

Summary of Meetings
o Public Meetings
o Environmental Scoping Meetings

Update on Operations by Existing Freight and Passenger Rail

Coordination with Other Projects
o South Station Expansion
o NEC Futures
o Quebec MTQ High-Speed Rail Study
o New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Project
Study Analysis Results

Station Evaluation and Assessment

Train Performance Calculator – Review of Results

Initial Ridership Forecast and Analysis
Upcoming Activities

Alternative Development Process

Additional Ridership Analysis

Other New Project Development Activities

Schedule and next steps
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.
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting
Questions and Comments
Project Outreach: Coordination with Other Projects
Tom Maziarz (CTDOT) – What’s the likelihood of South Station expansion actually happening?


Ron O’Blenis – Expansion has been discussed for a long time and there is an active study.
There is a capacity need in the system for it. There seems to be a recognized support for it going
forward.
Paul Nelson (Mass DOT) – Mass DOT is committed to this project happening but there are lots
of logistical challenges. We have FRA funding and are examining a number of opportunities,
such as leasing the overbuild of the site. We will have more information once this study is
complete, but it’s certainly the linchpin of a number of services being considered in
Massachusetts and the Northeast region right now.
Study Analysis Results: Station Evaluation and Assessment
Lyle Wray (Capitol Regional Council of Governments) – There should be a map that shows the
connection between metropolitan areas. Springfield and Hartford are 1.7 million people and this map
makes SPG and HRT look like other smaller stations. We are linking metro centers, this doesn’t
show here. Also, through Fasttrack (Hartford-New Britain Busway), we are getting rapid transit in
Connecticut. It’s an integrated metro area. It’s a comment about how to look at this.




Ron O’Blenis – Good comment. Someone asked why we used a three mile radius, a 3-mile
radius provides a good proxy for the density of the area. The point is well taken, we can add in
some demographic info as we move along.
Lyle Wray – with FastTrack – we will have three stations that overlap with rapid transit, that
should count toward looking at Hartford as an integrated metropolitan area.
John Weston (HDR) – we do have a population density map. Perhaps he is suggesting that we
use a population density map as a base. This would allow us to portray the connections of
populations and place names.
Ron O’Blenis – we will look at ways to add in this feature.
Study Analysis Results: Train Performance Calculator – Review of Results
(Unidentified Person on the Conference Call) - Are you going to keep within the current ROW?

Ron O’Blenis – Yes. The only place we would look outside the ROW is in very short segment
and only those that would have a good value.
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting





John Bernick (CTDOT) – Once you go outside the ROW, your costs increase astronomically.
There should really be a good benefit for the additional costs.
Paul Nelson – We do want to understand where improvements outside the right of way could
be that may provide benefits. However, depending on the level of benefits , we may not want it
part of the Service Development Plan.
Ron O’Blenis – It is agreed that the cost is expensive to go outside the ROW. The question to
ask is with the added cost, will the ridership increase be sufficient to offset the cost? Generally,
the answer is no.
John Weston – There is one location we identified where going outside the ROW may make
sense. This was in Canada – St. Jean – the line slows down significantly to go through a
downtown. This could have a substantive impact on travel times.
(Unidentified Person on the Conference Call) - Is there a way to quantify the costs vs. the
benefits? There must have been a process when you made those choices?
o Ron O’Blenis – The answer is yes. We did try to give a rationalization as part of the
analysis of the alternatives.
Tom Maziarz – Will this be a single or double track?
o Ron O’Blenis – This is a tale of two rail roads. North of Springfield, it’s a one track
ROW. Between Boston and New Haven, it is generally two tracks with notable
exceptions.
o Tom Maziarz – Will you have passing sidings? Two tracks?
o Ron O’Blenis – we will get into this in the alternatives.
o John Bernick – You have to take a look at the clearance envelope. Moving things a
couple inches outside the ROW can have a great impact such as needing substantive
retaining walls.
(Unidentified) - On the St. Albans to Montreal segment, have you accounted for the border crossing?




Ron O’Blenis – We are assuming the U.S. and Canadian customs and immigration services
will have clearances at Montreal Central Station, this is similar to the border crossing for air
passengers at Montreal Airport. The need for the train to stop at the border will be eliminated.
Serge Routhier (MTQ) – It takes about an hour and a half to get from the border to Montreal.
It’s reasonable that it will take an hour to go from Montreal to the border.
John Weston – Travel times developed do not include any of the future plans from the MTQ
report. Until we get direction from Serge in MTQ on planning changes, we will not know how
to incorporate the MTQ report numbers into ours.
Serge Routhier – We have some sharp curves. And, these are all built up areas. You have lots of
curves in the suburbs and then you have to cross the St. Lawrence. Plus, there’s the St. Jean de
Richelieu grade crossings in the Downtown area. It’s something like 10 MPH. The CP Line
might be better, but it goes into a different station. We haven’t looked into whether the CP
would enable us to go into Central Station, we didn’t have the funding for it. Going on the CP
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting
saves a lot of time. It’s mostly a straight line. Also an issue on the line is the Richelieu River
swing bridge, which needs to be automated.
Zach Williams (City of Claremont) – Could you briefly explain the assumptions behind the socio
economic data. Is this a trend or static/current figure?


John Weston – Our data takes existing growth and applies growth rates given historic
trends. This doesn’t go into the same level of detail as you would with a regional
transportation demand model, like an MPO. This model is an intercity model, used by
AMTRAK for intercity service. It doesn’t really go into the detail that you would for a
transit service. It takes existing values and applies past trends, though not necessarily a
straight line.
Ron O’Blenis – We received the comment from the Mayor, highlighting growth
foreseen.
o Zach Williams – The three mile capture area puts rural areas at a disadvantage.
The location of our station puts Claremont at a disadvantage. We believe our
data is much more dynamic, as we noted with the Mayor’s letter.
o Ron O’Blenis – Over three miles from the station area was a comparison of land
use, but was not used for the ridership model projections. This was a regional
approach. Might have created some confusion. We will explain this in great
detail in the future material.
o Zach Williams – population movements and dynamics are very different in this
part of the country.
o Jay Doyle (AECOM) – We looked at population and employment through 2040.
Looked at it annually. We didn’t use the MPO landuse forecast, we used
Moodyeconomy.com, this is consistent with the NEC Futures work.
Trevor Gibson (FRA) – What frequencies were assumed for each of these speeds?



John Weston – The initial ridership values include a combination of travel time and frequency
differences. It was different for different segments. Faster travel time and more frequent
services.
Trevor Gibson – There should be a comparison of all frequencies at the same speed to better
understand the comparisons. It would be better to have a comparison between services with a
static number of trains at each speed.
Kyle Gradinger (FRA) – It might continue to make sense to look at local in the heart of the
Corridor and the potential ridership along the Corridor’s core, because of the longer trip
journeys. The utility might come out in the middle.
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting
Study Analysis Results: Initial Ridership Forecast and Analysis
Tom Maziarz – These OD pairs tell an interesting story as to where the market might be.
Tom Maziarz – We received some comments on the NHHS project that said, to the effect, “You said
this was going to be HSR, why are there no trains above 90 MPH?” In light of such comments, it is
important to communicate that if we run more frequent trains, we have a lot of travel time by
minimizing wait time, without increasing speeds.

(AMTRAK) – Did you do any assumptions on the NYC to Montreal route, if you’d be
diverting anything from the existing Adirondack services? Same with NYC to Boston.
o John Weston – we had a conversation with the folks that ran the model, they had a hard
time differentiating between what’s on the Inland Route vs. on the Shore Line. At the
level of detail we did this, it was nearly impossible to divide the numbers. We separated
out the future growth and assumed it was on this Corridor.
o (AMTRAK) – The 90 MPH speed more accurately reflects the trip time on the Shore
Line. This would certainly affect the trips along the two Corridors.
o John Weston – Once we get the service alternatives and we run the models, we will
have a better idea of the split.
o Trevor Gibson – the NEC Futures is looking at improvements to the Shore Line. But,
what we’re seeing is the Boston to New Haven numbers might not be the meat of the
market.
o Lyle Wray (Capital Region Council of Governments)– 1.8 million people with rail
service to Boston would dramatically improve our access. Also, look at the vulnerability
of the Coast and the resiliency of potential Inland service. Again, it is important to look
at metro regions.
Trevor Gibson – I don’t want to add to scope of work, but, look at potential for development around
stations. It could be useful to look at the potential for development around future stations. Nothing is
ever certain in real estate, but it could be useful to gather from Stakeholders what the plans are in
cities and towns.


Ron O’Blenis – Agreed, and ask of the PPCs and others to please send us your information.
Help us understand what your town is looking at.
Zach Williams – We have plans for significant upgrades for the station, including parking.
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting
Upcoming Activities: Alternative Development Process
Tim Brennan (PVPC) - We have AMTRAK shuttles that go south from Springfield, are you
proposing that some or all continue to Boston?

Ron O’Blenis – Yes, there are at least four that continue on.
(Unidentified Person on the Conference Call) – In terms of schedule of trains, what would be my
wait time if I wanted to transfer in Springfield? Was that looked at?

Ron O’Blenis - There will be consideration in the Alternatives Analysis Phase of the Project.
It’s a bit too detailed to answer right now. As we move along in the study, we will balance
frequencies. Our end product is the Service Development Plan and the level of detail you are
asking about will be included at that time.
Ron O’Blenis – I want to briefly discuss the alternatives. Are there any thoughts?
Alt 1
Jon Foster (CTDOT) – It would be helpful for a summary to give general levels of service on this.
You’re showing one more train to Hartford.

Ron – Yes, we are planning to provide this. This will be included in the description of the
alternatives. We wanted to show them graphically here and will provide a description of the
alternatives.
Alt 2
Paul Nelson – In the second alternative, is that express train an extension?

John Weston – The concept is that the existing state-supported AMTRAK shuttle “209 service”
would be extended. There are four local round trips are currently operated. The graphic should
not that there will be four added express trains. How those interact with the non-209 service,
would be something we have to figure out.
Alt 3
(CTDOT) –We are limited to 12 trains a day north of Hartford due to the single track consistent with
Alternatives I and II. In the NHHS full build plan, the assumption is that future funding will be
identified to make improvements to accommodate 25 round trips per day. The Alternative looks to
be consistent with the full build.

John Weston – these alternatives are for the NEPA document. In the Service Development
Plan, it might be a phased approach where some of these services come in at a different point.
When we’re doing intercity rail planning, it is possible to take an incremental approach and
build up service levels as we go.
Jon Foster – how much faster can a tilt train operate along the Corridor?

Ron O’Blenis - It depends on the curvature.
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting

John Weston – we could be talking a good 20-30 minutes off of the run times using tilt
equipment, even if we are not operating up to the 90 MPH.
Tim Brennan – Could we consider this an evolution over time?

Ron O’Blenis – Yes, and we might not pick a single alternative. It might be a mixture between
the three.
Trevor Gibson (FRA) – Will you also be able to look at the impact of transfer penalties?


Jay Doyle – to a certain extent, yes.
Ron O’Blenis – this will also have to be proxy to travel time.
Upcoming Activities: Schedule and Next Steps
Ron O’Blenis – Next stakeholder meeting will be in the first part of September.
----- End -----
May 7, 2014
Stakeholder Meeting
Table 1.1: Attendance
Organization
Name
AMTRAK
Jeff Gerlach
x
AMTRAK
Bill Hollister
x
Capitol Region Council of Governments
Lyle Wray
x
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
Michele Boomhower
x
Central Mass Regional Planning Commission
Bill Moisuk
x
Town of Claremont, NH
Zach Williams
x
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
John Bernick
x
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
Jon Foster
x
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
Thomas Izzo
x
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
Richard Jankovich
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation
Tom Maziarz
CSX
Marco Turro
Federal Railroad Administration
Trevor Gibson
x
Federal Railroad Administration
Kyle Gradinger
x
Federal Railroad Administration
Michelle Fishburne
Office of Congressman Jim McGovern
Natalie Blais
x
Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation
Paul Nelson
x
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Alison Felix
x
MTA Metro North
John Kennard
x
New Hampshire Dept. of Transportation
Shelley Winters
x
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Tim Brennan
x
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Dana Roscoe
x
Quebec Ministry of Transportation
Serge Routhier
x
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning
Commission
Nate Miller
x
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Scott Bascom
x
Windham Regional Commission
Matt Mann
x
May 7, 2014
SPG
TEL
x
x
x
x
Stakeholder Meeting
AECOM
Jay Doyle
x
FHI
Jill Barrett
x
HDR
Ron O’Blenis
x
HDR
John Weston
x
HDR
Matt Moran
x
HDR
Joe Yanuzzi
x
LTK
Bill Lipfert
x
Transportation Planning and Resource Group
Astrid Glynn
x
?
Jonathan Edwards
May 7, 2014
x
Stakeholder Meeting