Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative
Stakeholder Committee Meeting Summary
December 18, 2013 – 11:00 a.m.
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Springfield, MA
The first meeting of the Stakeholder Committee of the Northern New England Intercity Rail
Initiative (NNEIRI) was held on Wednesday, December 18, 2013, at the Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission, 60 Congress Street in Springfield MA. The meeting was attended by about 40
individuals from seven states and Quebec Province, Canada, with the majority attending via Go
to Meeting teleconference.
Paul Nelson of MassDOT welcomed attendees and explained the purpose of the meeting was to
give an overview of the study, have a detailed discussion on the study’s draft Purpose and Need
Statement, outline the study schedule, including upcoming public outreach meetings [January 22,
White River Junction, VT and January 23, Springfield, MA] and next steps.
This study will examine the implementation and operation of more frequent and higher speed
intercity passenger rail service on the Inland Route and the Boston –Springfield-Montreal
corridors along with the corresponding ridership potential and necessary infrastructure
improvement alternatives. Alternatives will seek to maximize the use of the existing corridors.
Project outcomes will include: 1) a NEPA Programmatic EIS, and 2) a Service Development
Plan for both the Inland Route Corridor and the Boston-Springfield-Montreal Corridor.
Track Ownership within the NNEIRI Corridor consists of:






Amtrak – 62 miles
Commonwealth of Massachusetts – 44 miles
CSX – 56 miles
PanAm Southern – 49 miles
New England Central Railroad – 206 miles
Canadian National Railroad – 53 miles
Public participation will be integrated into the study process through a Stakeholder Committee,
comprised of transportation agencies and providers and regional planning agencies and
commissions, public outreach meetings, a project website, newsletters/bulletins and coordination
with other rail projects such as the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Project, Vermont Rail Plan
and Northeast Corridor Future.
There was extensive discussion by the Stakeholder Committee about corridor capacity,
ownership, maintaining freight and rail operations, route alignment and customs and immigration
issues between the U.S. and Canada. Discussion points are detailed below:
Paul Nelson of MassDOT: Developing the Purpose and Need is the first step in the
environmental process. Going forward our measures will be based on it, so if there is anything
that you value as part of the study needs to be in the Purpose and Need.
Meeting Minutes
1
December 2013
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission: We suggest some modifications to the Purpose and
Need Statement in formatting and content:




The table of educational level on page 4 is difficult to read, especially when
reproduced in black and white.
On the bottom of page 10 the decimal point in the mileage allowance is in the wrong
place.
Peter Pan Bus, an important intercity carrier, is not listed in the bus section on page
11. It makes nine runs daily between Springfield and Boston, Boston and Hartford,
NYC and Springfield.
The posting of Amtrak travel times are too high and the $19 fare between Boston and
Springfield is too low. It is more like $27-$30.
Marco Turra, CSX: Stated more information is needed about the study. The documentation
implies this will be a High Speed Rail (HSR) project. If it is not, then the definition of the
corridor and exact level of service should be clarified.
Ron O’Blenis responded that this study is not looking at developing high speed rail but is
anticipating operating improved intercity trains over existing rail lines. In 2004, the Boston to
Albany and Springfield to New Haven corridor was added to the designated Northern New
England High Speed Rail Corridor. The Boston to Springfield to New Haven segment is known
as the Inland Route
Paul Nelson added that the study will explore different speeds along the corridor. If only a few
segments can accommodate speeds in excess of 120 mph, then this type of service does not make
sense.
It was noted that CSX policy requires that passenger rail service over 90 mph must be on
separate tracks at least 30 feet from the freight tracks. Paul Nelson responded that the study will
work to with the individual railroads to understand and define for the study rail policies relative
to the use of existing rail lines for potential expansion of rail intercity being considered in the
study.
Matt Mann, Windham Regional Planning Commission: Indicated that he was concerned
about community impact; he believes a needs assessment should be done as to the impact of high
speed rail – the study should be about more than just tracks. He cited a need for a substantial
upgrade in Vermont due to the introduction of faster trains, and improvements are needed at
stations to allow people to access rail. Paul Nelson responded that the study will consider
stations access including if there is transit available. Evaluating existing stations is included in
the study but it is not stated in the Purpose and Need.
Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Council of Governments: Linda asked if the stations listed on slide
9 of the presentation were the only places that will be served by rail. She said that she did not see
Greenfield on the list and asked what would I need to do to make a case for Greenfield.
Ron O’Blenis responded that the study is conducting an existing conditions study of all the
stations on the route. We will be looking at what are the needs and what has to be done to
address needs. The reason that not all existing stations are included is that an efficient intercity
service would need limit the number of stops and have a reasonable distance between stations to
have trains run with a reasonable travel time. John Weston of HDR added that this study will be
examining the demographics of the whole corridor and what is needed at stations for service like
Meeting Minutes
2
December 2013
this. He said the current list is the study team’s initial list understanding of what it thinks the
right stations are that will be used to support the needed preliminary travel time modeling. The
list of stations included in the final recommended service plans may change from the current list.
Charles Planck of MBTA said that the study needs to have well defined station selection criteria
that can be clearly explained to the public and at public meetings, especially in communities that
won’t have a station. The study team will need to have a good answer as to why a community
will not be served. Paul Nelson responded that criteria are being worked on and the measures
will be ready in July. Ron O’Blenis added that the study will identify other services that might
link into this rail system.
Marco Turra, CSX: – Marco inquired, how did you come up with this alignment; have you
done an analysis?
Ron O’Blenis responded that the alignment is an iteration of several different studies. In 2003, at
the conclusion of Phase 1 of the Boston to Montreal High Speed Rail Study, it was decided that
the New Hampshire route was not feasible. Shelley Winters of New Hampshire DOT said a
portion of the NH rail corridor (west of Concord) is not active right now and the state has no
plans to reactivate the corridor to White River Junction.
Following NHDOT’s decision not to support the continued evaluation of the Boston to Montreal
via the New Hampshire account of the cost, Massachusetts and Vermont, with Federal Rail
Administration (FRA) developed the alternate route from Boston to Montreal via Springfield.
As noted above, the designated HSR Inland Route to Springfield with a connection then from
Springfield to Vermont was deemed to be a practical alternative route for Boston to Montreal.
This route connects to Hartford/New Haven. It would use the planned new route of the via the
Pan Am line to East Northfield with connection to NECR to White River Junction If this
alignment proves feasible, then the Springfield to White River Junction could be added to the
Northern New England High Speed Rail Corridor. FRA’s rationale is that the revised corridor
for Boston to Montreal that is being studied would utilize routes with other rail investments.
Marco asked when Congress designated HSR routes did it designate city pairs or did it designate
specific property? Trevor Gibson of FRA responded that the designated routes approximated a
Corridor and not a specific right of way. This needs more study. Marco said he did not think
that due diligence was done as to whether the study’s alignment makes sense for the ROW.
Supporting freight is CSX’s goal. Marco believes there should be a background process with
alternatives; a more transparent process.
Charles Hunter, New England Central Railroad: Charles said the linkage for Boston to
Montreal going north from Palmer should be studied in detail. This route could save time rather
than going through Springfield. Right now, the trip time between Boston and Montreal is nine
hours while it takes five hours by auto.
Cyndi Scarano, Pan Am/Southern Railroad: Cyndi noted that the study’s Agency and
Stakeholder Involvement Plan indicates there will not be a discussion of costs until the third
public meeting and whether it should be done sooner.
Ron O’Blenis responded that the study team is still at the point of defining the project; we want
to engage all the railroads – freight and passenger - in discussions about their current and future
needs. Ron noted that maintaining freight operations was not articulated in the Purpose and
Need statement and would highlighted in the study.
Meeting Minutes
3
December 2013
Cyndi stated that she thought it was important to know where the funding was coming from. She
said the railroad has had positive experience with combining passenger and freight operations
but the liability issue would have to be worked out.
Ron O’Blenis said the current study is a high-level look at the corridor, with a programmatic
EIS. More supplemental study would be needed as specific projects were identified. As part of
evaluating alternatives, the team will work with to the railroads to develop and consider
appropriate railroad policies.
Serge Routhier, Québec Ministry of Transportation: Serge contributed his knowledge about
the rail segment between Montreal and the U.S. border. A study of this area was completed on
November 15th but needs to be sent to supervisors for approval. He noted that there are three
potential routes, though the NNEIRI study only shows one route, on the Canadian National (CN)
line. There is also a Canadian Pacific (CP) line but the CN and CP routes are no longer
connected. The CP Line is close to the CN line, somewhat more direct and the costs are less on
the CP line. Curves and on the CN Line are problematic, such as at St. Jean de Richelieu. Tracks
at that location are very close to buildings and there is no way to increase speed, which is posted
at 10 mph. Additionally there are security concerns as the slow speed enables people to jump
trains. This is a significant problem. Serge noted that the line could be routed over the St.
Lawrence Bridge rather than Victoria Bridge.
Marco Turra, CSX: Why are there no other alignments? I have not seen anything for other
alternatives for the Worcester to Springfield segment. If New Hampshire is not being considered
because the State decided not to participate anymore then I think CSX should be allowed the
same. Paul Nelson of Mass DOT responded that this study does not consider other alignments; it
is not in the scope. Marco replied that this needs to be addressed.
Rich Rydant, Central Mass Regional Planning Commission: (comment in the Meeting Place
System, not spoken on the phone) Rich commented that CMRPC is pleased to participate in this
effort. The agency also offers future meeting accommodations at Worcester's historic Union
Station. CMRPC staff has expertise in reaching out to environmental justice populations and can
assist the team in this area. Worcester is a stop on the existing Inland Route to New Haven. This
evaluation of potential future service has long been anticipated. Further, as CSX and others have
indicated, existing and future expansion in rail freight service on the privately owned lines is a
major consideration.
Tim Brennan, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission: Tim noted that an underlying theme is
economic competitiveness; better rail service will be good for the economy. He asked if that will
that be translated into numbers data including information on jobs, return on investment, and
benefits cost information.
Ron O’Blenis responded that a market analysis will be done. Alternatives will be compared on
how the alternative meets economic need. Tim remarked that this will be helpful later on if there
is a strong economic argument when trying to attract public dollars.
Tim also commented that Amtrak has documented the need for redundancy in its east/west route.
For example, when there is flooding in Rhode Island the rail line is shut down. Amtrak has called
out the need in its master plan to provide an alternative route, in addition to the need to expand
South Station.
Meeting Minutes
4
December 2013
Ron O’Blenis responded that the redundancy issue will come out in the screening of alternatives.
Providing redundancy would definitely be a benefit to the Northeast Corridor and New HavenHartford-Springfield Commuter Rail. Our study’s route could provide secondary benefits to
meet the needs but the team did not want to specifically link the study’s assessment of
alternatives to other rail initiatives. The team thought that it should be a potential benefit but not
a stated purpose.
Charles Planck of MBTA said he hopes it is in the scope to do an inventory of yards and
maintenance facilities regardless of who owns them as this allow the study to figure out capacity.
And, it may help preserve these facilities from encroachment. Our experience tells us that once
rail yards are lost we don’t get them back.
Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Council of Governments: What is the basis for alternative
evaluation for the EIS?
Ron O’Blenis responded that the Purpose and Need will provide the foundation for screening
alternatives. Paul Nelson added, once the Purpose and Need is set, we need to stick to it. Paul
asked the Stakeholder Committee to carefully look at the Purpose and Need as MassDOT is
looking for input before the public meetings planned for the third week in January. He added that
the whole study scoping process will be noticed and outlined in the federal register. Paul asked
the committee to assist with reaching out to the public about the study. He would like assistance
in distributing flyers advertising meetings to be held at the Hotel Coolidge in White River
Junction on January 22 at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission of January 23. Both
meetings will be at 7:00 p.m. Jill Barrett said everyone will receive a flyer later that day
advertising the January public meetings. Paul Nelson also asked the committee to identify any
language translation that might be needed.
Ron O’Blenis said that the Stakeholder Committee would reconvene group in the springtime.
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
Attendees (in person)











Paul Nelson, MassDOT
Scott Bascom, Vermont Agency of Transportation
Charles Hunter, New England Central Railroad (NECR)
Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Region Council of Governments
Tim Brennan, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Dana Roscoe, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Matt Mann, Windham Regional Commission
Ronald O’Blenis, HDR
Jill Barrett, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.
Matt Moran, HDR
Tom Keough, AECOM
Attendees (via teleconference)

Gene Colonese, Connecticut DOT
Meeting Minutes
5
December 2013

























John Foster, Connecticut DOT
Amy Bell, Vermont Agency of Transportation
Jackie Cassino, Vermont Agency of Transportation
Shelley Winters, New Hampshire DOT
Serge Routhier, Québec Ministry of Transportation
Trevor Gibson, Federal Rail Administration
Kyle Gradinger, Federal Rail Administration
William Hollister, Amtak,
Marco Turra, CSX Railroad
Cyndi Scarano, Pan Am/Norfolk Southern Railroad
Charles Planck, MBTA
Joseph Cosgrove, MBTA
Carl Amento, South Central Region Council of Governments
Kyle Wray, Capitol Region Council of Governments
Alison Felix, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Rich Rydant, Central Mass Regional Planning Commission
Christine Walker, Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission
Nate Miller, Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission
Rita Seto, Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission
Steve Gladczuk, Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission
Michele Boomhower, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
Catherine Dimitruk, Northwest Regional Planning Commission
Katherine Otto, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission
John Weston, HDR
Jim Stoetzel, Transit Safety Management
Meeting Minutes
6
December 2013