Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI)
Public Meeting
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Springfield, MA
1/23/14 7:00 – 8:30 PM
Paul Nelson, Manager of Corridor Planning for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
welcomed attendees. He said that a presentation will be made on a planning effort to improve intercity
rail service within the New England Region and the public will be asked to provide input on it. Paul
introduced Ron O’Blenis, head of the HDR consultant team that is conducting the study on behalf of
MassDOT and the Vermont Agency of Transportation. Ron gave a PowerPoint presentation that
described the rail study currently underway. A summary of the presentation is provided below. Public
comments received at the meeting are provided following the presentation summary.
Presentation Summary
The Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) study is a partnership of the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation and the Vermont Agency of Transportation with support from the Federal
Railroad Administration and in collaboration with Connecticut Department of Transportation and the
Ministère des Transports du Québec. The study will examine the potential for operation of more
frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail service on the Inland Route and the Boston-toMontreal corridors. It will examine ridership potential, necessary incremental infrastructure
improvements and will maximize the use of the existing rail corridor. Specific project outcomes will be a
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Tier 1 Environmental Assessment and a Service Development
Plan for the corridor.
The following draft Purpose statement and summary of needs was presented.
Draft Purpose
The purpose of the Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative is to provide additional regional travel
options through improvements to the level and quality of passenger rail service in the Corridor.
•
The Corridor rail services would provide improved passenger rail transportation, connecting
major cities in New England with smaller cities and rural areas and internationally to Montreal,
to help meet future travel demands in the Study Area.
•
The Project would create a competitive rail transportation alternative to the available
automobile, bus, and air service by implementing more frequent and higher speed intercity
passenger rail service.
•
The study of the Corridor will focus on incremental infrastructure improvement alternatives that
will seek to maximize the use of the existing rail lines along the Corridor.
Summary of Draft Needs
•
•
Economic Opportunity
•
Job Access
•
Expanded transit options for Education Centers
•
Tourism
Responsive to Population and Demographics
•
Changes transportation preferences
•
Accommodate existing reliance on public transit
•
Meet future increase in travel demand
The total route is 470 miles and can be broken into three segments: Boston to Springfield, 99 miles,
Springfield to Montreal, 309 miles and Springfield to New Haven, 62 miles. Segments of the rail corridor
have six different owners. The owners along the corridor are: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 44
miles between Boston and Worcester, CSX: 55 Miles between Worcester and Springfield, Pan Am
Southern: 49 miles between Springfield and the MA/VT border, New England Central Railroad: 206 miles
between the MA/VT border and the U.S./Canada border, Canadian National Railroad: 53 miles from the
U.S./Canada border to Montreal and AMTRAK: 62 miles from Springfield to New Haven.
The study will be guided by a stakeholder committee comprised of transportation agencies,
transportation providers, and Regional Planning Agencies/Commissions. The public outreach plan
includes four rounds of public meetings, a project website, newsletters/e-bulletins, publicity through
local media and electronic communication using e-mail alerts. Outreach will specifically identify
potentially affected communities, including minority and low-income populations that will require
targeted outreach. The study will be coordinated with other projects and studies such as the New
Haven – Hartford – Springfield Rail Project, the Vermont State Rail Plan, South Station Expansion and
NEC Future.
The Study will develop a series of alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need. Alternatives will include:
variations of speed, frequency and fares, accommodation for operation and growth of freight,
consistency with current and planned projects, and incorporation of public input. Once developed, the
alternatives will be screened against a set of evaluation criteria.
Corridor considerations that were identified are: existing use of rail corridor for freight and passenger
operations, not considering significant route modifications, environmental considerations such as noise
and vibration, historic resources and natural resources and customs and immigration.
Infrastructure considerations of the study were described. They are: capacity of existing rail corridor,
track improvements of existing rail alignments, and the need for signal installation or upgrades resulting
from potential speeds in excess of 79 mph. A total 404 grade crossings would be reviewed; crossings
must be grade separated when train speeds exceed 110 mph.
Although a final decision of train stations will be made later in the study, a preliminary list of stations
was developed as follows:
•
Massachusetts: Boston (Back Bay and South Station), suburban Boston, Worcester, Palmer,
Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield
• Vermont: Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, White River Junction, Montpelier, Waterbury, Burlington
(Essex Junction) and St. Albans
• Connecticut: Windsor Locks, Windsor, Hartford, Meriden, Wallingford, New Haven (Union
Station)
The presentation concluded with an overview of the study schedule.
Service projections ridership
03/18/14
Preliminary alternatives
09/12/14
Finalize alternatives
10/31/14
Service Development Plans
09/03/15
Complete NEPA process
09/25/15
Public Comments
The following questions or comments (noted in italics) were made by the public, followed by the
response by the project team.
Could you add seniors to what you consider as an environmental justice population? Environmental
justice populations are defined by the federal government, but I will be happy to hear your thoughts on
how we can better involve seniors. A good way to reach seniors is through senior centers
I live in Windsor, CT and would love to be able to go to Boston on the train but I don't want to have to
go from Windsor, Hartford to New Haven and then up to get to Boston. That's exactly the kind of
feedback about destinations that we want to hear.
What are you doing to support the population that gets stuck in an airport because of the weather?
Trains do run in the snow but we are not looking at airport routes. Though I sympathize, our study is
limited to existing track. We're trying to stay within existing footprint to utilize the rail that we already
have, to minimize our environmental impact, and take advantage of the opportunities to make cross
country connections.
What about the impact of the interstate highways that were built since the existing railroads? They
changed the whole game. We think we need to focus on infrastructure considerations and what do we
need to do on existing rail corridors. We need capacity improvements within the corridor operations.
That includes track and at grade crossing improvements, signal upgrades when necessary. We are
looking at signal requirements if we start going above the speed of about 79 miles an hour, which we
probably would do in many locations.
Why have you left out the rail corridor from the Berkshires to Albany? At Springfield, our route goes
north and south. We are focusing on capturing the demographics of Massachusetts and Connecticut and
Vermont and are not focused on going west.
I think as you get older and once you get out of your comfort zone with cars, train travel would be
much preferred, so it would be nice to have the convenience of the train travel.
It seems like there are a lot of different organization working within their own piece of the pie to
create a full pie. How will all of this work together? When we travel, do we stop at state borders? We
don’t usually but many times states will only look at transportation within the state. This is study that is
looking at where people want to go, regardless of state borders; we are looking at rail travel from a
regional perspective. When the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) awarded grants to the State of
Vermont and to the Knowledge Corridor in Massachusetts, they recognized these independent projects
were part of a regional plan.
I represent the Central Corridor which runs from Brattleboro, Vermont down to New London,
Connecticut. Would you tell us what relationship this plan will have to that corridor and how it all
gets tied together? MassDOT is taking a separate look at the Central Corridor. As we develop our
alternative, with different services and schedules, we will seek to maximize the interconnection
between these two corridors to help each service build the other up. So it's definitely a corridor we're
aware of and will be including as best we can.
My concern is when I see the Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative it's from Boston to
everywhere else. I know we are only a piece of the puzzle down in Connecticut, but it's a major
economic piece for us. It's Transit Orient Development, and it just seems that this emphasis looks like
it's from Boston to the rest of the world. I think you might want to consider making some other
language about how many miles to here or there or it doesn't all lead to Boston. We really recognize
that Boston is really just a part of this puzzle and many people who would be using these corridors
would never be traveling to Boston or even on that branch. It's actually just a legacy of the designation
the corridor by Congress that the route originates out of Boston. But, please be assured that we plan to
plan for every kind of trip along the corridor, even those not headed towards Boston.
This Knowledge Corridor, New Haven to Springfield has over 2.77 million people. It is the second
largest region in New England area aside from Boston. Our rail system right now is like Third World.
We're not globally competitive for attracting employers and talent right now.
Are you addressing the absence of a second rail line between Hartford and Springfield, which is a
serious impediment as we go forward? [response by John Bernick, Project Manager for the New
Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Program, Connecticut Department of Transportation] CTDOT is doubletracking up to Windsor. With the current funding that we have now, that leaves a couple of pieces that
are short of the second track. It's not continuous. Enfield north is double-tracked already, so there are
sections double-tracked. It was our intention to double-track all the way to Springfield; however, FRA
did not award all the money that we needed. CTDOT plans on completing double track to Springfield
and is actively looking for funding sources. If we get that second track, that allows us to go from 12 to 17
trains a day to 25 round trips a day.
What do you think of the timeframes for us getting the service extended beyond Worcester from
Boston to Springfield and also a potential rail service from Springfield up to Montreal? [response by
Paul Nelson, MassDOT] I don't like to make predictions before I know what we have to do to establish
that service, and that's really what this study is meant to identify. We are going to have to identify what
types of improvements are needed, what type of equipment would be needed, and what potential
environmental impacts there are. A lot of that really sets the timeline for funding that would be needed
and really drives the schedule. It would be, you know, five or ten years from now at a minimum to
establish this. We would obviously seek every opportunity to accelerate that timeline. Given our
experience with other similar projects, it would be at least that amount of time.
I think the ridership should include potential diversions from regional airlines. I notice that the route
bypasses the Hartford/Springfield airport. The regional model that we will be looking at does consider
if we make train travel or other modes more attractive that you could pull people from airline travel to
rail. So even though we said we are not focusing on airports in general for the study, the ridership
analysis takes diversion from air to rail into consideration.
I was wondering if you could address the freight capacity on the track given the increase in passenger
service coming through and whether or not some of that freight would be diverted over onto other
tracks. The intent is not to divert any existing freight and we will be planning for future freight growth.
Improvements will allow the trains to run faster and more reliable both the freight and passenger trains.
I am just curious with the lowest speed at 60, is that truly the lowest it goes throughout? Up through
Northampton trains go right behind peoples’ houses. The 60 is what we call the maximum operating
speed. There are places where the train will actually have a slower speed.
Holyoke is on your list of your potential station locations. Holyoke is granted money to build the
stations that it's going to be serving. Is it a potential station location or is it a selected station
location? As we look at these services, we are trying to capture larger travel markets. So we will see
where it makes sense to stop when we consider cities such as Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield,
Some trains may stop; other may not stop at the station. Holyoke Station will be served by the mainline
train track.
What is current capacity between Worcester and Springfield using the existing signaling and track if
we want to just put additional trains on from Worcester today? I honestly can’t answer that question
right now. I think there is existing capacity there right now, because it has a fairly modern signal system
even though it's a single track. As we develop the alternatives we will have a better understanding
existing conditions and improvements that have to be made.
We tend to do the best of everything when we put in a new rail line or improve a service when maybe
we can get by with what we have for now on some of these lines to avoid additional costs. Do we have
current capacity to get service started without a huge investment? That will be one thing that we are
trying to determine specifically but I can't tell you that right now.
What you are going to do to create a public/private partnership with CSX much like that Virginia did
with Norfolk/Suffolk to create the Norfolk service in Petersburg, Norfolk? CSX and the Commonwealth
have worked together on the line between Boston and Worcester. We will be partnering with the rail
owners.
How many trains do you plan on running on the so-called Knowledge Corridor, in Massachusetts up to
Greenfield? I don't see spending the bucket of money you are going to spend on rehabbing that line to
run trains at maybe 70 miles per hour to run just to Vermont. There's one train a day on some of these
routes that Amtrak runs, and just doesn't cut it. When you want to go is not when the train goes. You
will need to run three trains a day on some of these routes to give people a chance for the train fit
their schedule. The plan is once we get the Knowledge Corridor route started, let's move and consider
other trains. There are some thoughts of how connects to some of Connecticut. There is planning being
done.
Amtrak used to run a couple of trains a day each way on the so-called Inland Route, Boston, New
Haven, New York, to Washington, D.C. I think they have been all cut off. Nothing runs that way
anymore. So are these trains that are going to run on the Inland Route, which I consider all the way to
New Haven. What happens when those trains get to New Haven if you want to go beyond there? This
is something Connecticut folks and Amtrak will be figuring out as connections to the corridor are very
important.
I am having a real problem with once again the people in Boston shutting out the counties west of the
Connecticut River. I think that Boston, Springfield, Albany has great potential. The same
public/private partnership that you use between Springfield and Worcester could work for Springfield
to Albany. Amtrak is already planning on some track platform capacity at Union Station where they
might be able to handle four or five trains each day across. In 2010, Governor Patrick said that it was
unacceptable that Amtrak only ran one train and then proceeded to do nothing about it. The difficulty
is that you just can't snap your fingers and have things happen overnight. Springfield is a hub. And as
we improve and make Springfield work better, the next step would be to improve connections west.
Right now we are moving forward on what makes sense, setting a foundation for future connections.
What are you specifically looking at regarding Springfield to Boston? Currently it’s a freight line. Will
there be commuter rail and when will the study be done? We will be looking at what additional
improvements have to be made to add whatever number of trains we think is reasonable. We will come
back out and share that with you in the fall of 2014.
There are a lot of people out here that really do understand how incredibly hard this is to do and how
long it takes. In the last five or ten years, I have seen change in the attempts to improve passenger rail
services in New England. The previous 50 or 60 years were a desert. With that said, I also want you to
hear the urgency in the room and ignore how hard it is. Five to ten years to complete this is probably
realistic. I want you to go beyond realistic. I want you to do that in five to seven years max.
Amherst, along with its 29,000 students, is going to lose service when the Knowledge Corridor is
complete. Having to wait for 10 to 15 years or longer for a connector to Palmer so people can go to
and from the hub of the universe or anywhere else, I want you to go faster, do better. We will help.
[Abby Swain, New England Region, USEPA] I was glad to hear what you were saying about
accommodating future freight volume, which is very important. Increased freight volumes are
definitely anticipated. Where will the freight trains have to pull over to give priority to passenger rail?
I understand they will be relegated mainly to night moves but they have to respond to the needs of
their crew’s hours of service and their customers' needs. Also, they do have a federal obligation to
accept goods and carry them over the rails. So it could come to the point where there will be trains
pulling over to yield to passenger trains and then how will they behave? Where sidings are located
will really affect the folks who happen to live near the sidings if, indeed, they are in populated areas.
Freight trains run any time they need to, not just at night. We are working with CSX, New England
Central, PanAm Southern and even the MBTA within the Boston area. We've started looking at existing
conditions and what has to happen if we want to start operating more trains. We do not have an answer
yet but it won't be one-size-fits-all response. We may look at phasing improvements, provide for adding
a few trains and first but eventually make improvements to accommodate many more.
Is the document on the website that references siding locations predicated on the anticipated realistic
near term volumes? Yes.
Between Holyoke and Northampton along Route 5 and there's a stretch of rail that was worked on
rather extensively in the summer and fall of 2012. Welded rails were brought in, laid alongside the
existing rails, and some is still sitting there rusting in the rain. When is that stretch of track going to be
finished? A member of the audience said that work will resume in the spring and should be done by the
end of July or August.
What will the rail cars be like? Who will provide them? Will they have adaptive technology? Some of
those questions will be part of the study.
I and many others have been working on Central Corridor line which we think could make a great loop
– Amherst, New Haven, New London, Willimantic, Palmer. I'm hoping that the plans that you put
forward can become a reality and that you take a look at this loop system because it would be a way
to constantly move trains right behind each other.
The study doesn't say Northern New England east of Connecticut River. So I think adding two percent
to your plan in terms of budget and planning you may benefit in the long-run and look at the whole
state.
In the closing minutes of the meeting Ron O’Blenis asked for feedback from the audience about the
Purpose and Need Statement that was presented. Does it make sense? He asked for a show of hands
indicating support for Purpose and Need. The majority of attendees responded affirmatively.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.