NEC Tier I EIS Public Scoping Meetings

[afigg]

The FRA is taking the lead on writing a Tier I EIS for the entire NEC. See the necfuture.com website for info. As part of the EIS process, there are public meetings to present information on the EIS and receive public comments.

The dates, times, and locations for the initial round of Public Scoping Meetings have been posted. I would not expect much information on the specifics of the EIS and projects for the NEC in this meeting. But here is your chance to be heard and/or submit written comments!

Public meetings will be held at several points in the planning process. The first public meetings will be Scoping Meetings in August 2012 to help define the scope of study for the Tier 1 EIS, being conducted in accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. These meetings will be held in an open house format from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.; participants are welcome to arrive at any time during the open house. Informational displays will be available and project staff will be on hand to answer questions, listen to your comments and discuss the project.

A brief presentation by project staff will be given at 5:30 p.m..

Following the presentation, there will be an opportunity to provide formal comments, either publicly or privately to a stenographer. There will also be opportunities for written comments at the meeting, by mail, email, and through this website until September 14, 2012.

The cities and dates:

Boston, MA Monday, August 13

New Haven, CT Tuesday, August 14

Baltimore, MD Wednesday, August 15

Newark, NJ Wednesday, August 15

New York, NY Thursday, August 16

Philadelphia, PA Monday, August 20

Wilmington, DE Monday, August 20

Washington, DC Tuesday, August 21

Providence, RI Wednesday, August 22

 

[jis]

Anyone planning to go to the Newark or New York one? I plan to go to both.

 

[Tracktwentynine]

I'll be at the one in Washington. Can't do Baltimore, as I have a work conflict.

 

[afigg]

The NEC Future Scoping Document has been posted to the website in preparation for the 9 public meetings. The cover is a picture of a crowded DC Union Station concourse. Not so subtle tie-in to the recent Union Station master plan?

One thought that occurs to me while looking at the map of connecting corridors to the NEC south. Shouldn't the planning include the Lackawanna Cutoff? There are major population centers in eastern PA that do not have passenger rail service - Allentown, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre - because of terrain and how the long years of shrinking of passenger rail service played out. It is really a huge failing that there are no Amtrak or commuter trains from those cities that connect to the NEC at PHL, NJ or NYC. Planning for the NEC should take into account how those cities might someday be re-connected to the passenger rail network.

 

[NE933]

I've always been grossly disappointed that the Lehigh Valley PA towns like Allentown, WilkesBarre, Bethlehem, Jim Thorpe, were seldom thought of, and in all honesty, the reverse as well. These towns have exhibited little interest in any passenger rail revival, places that once had more trains than one can count. The dissimilarity is as stark as a purple tomatoe.

 

[Anderson]

The NEC Future Scoping Document has been posted to the website in preparation for the 9 public meetings. The cover is a picture of a crowded DC Union Station concourse. Not so subtle tie-in to the recent Union Station master plan?

One thought that occurs to me while looking at the map of connecting corridors to the NEC south. Shouldn't the planning include the Lackawanna Cutoff? There are major population centers in eastern PA that do not have passenger rail service - Allentown, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre - because of terrain and how the long years of shrinking of passenger rail service played out. It is really a huge failing that there are no Amtrak or commuter trains from those cities that connect to the NEC at PHL, NJ or NYC. Planning for the NEC should take into account how those cities might someday be re-connected to the passenger rail network.

Well, in general the document seems to discount connecting corridors in general. Keystone gets some lip service, but everything else seems to get ignored more or less. This is particularly frustrating since as the momentum seems to be going, there's likely to be a second line of some sort running north of NYC due to capacity problems.* I get that the NEC is treated as sui generis for a whole host of reasons, but I would submit that there is plenty of potential demand being lost out on by just focusing on the NEC itself and not seriously looking into additional spurs (or even a full-blown secondary alignment in some places with "fast conventional" service).**

Just wondering, but since the maps aren't always that good...I know that the B&O line roughly paralleled the Pennsy's NEC. Where did the Reading's services go? How about Central of New Jersey and Erie?

*Not that slot capacity is really an issue in some cases, at least for now. Station capacity, on the other hand, particularly relating to train length...yeah, that's a problem and I do hope they seriously look at stretching platforms out quite a bit more so they can begin pushing back to 12+ car trains like the Pennsy was running at one point. I can't help but wonder what the effect of a push to get every major station on the NEC up to about 14 cars' capacity for trains would have. Ditto a similar push for MNRR and/or NJT to save slots.

**Honestly, I'm wondering if a serious "throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" study might not be worth looking into in the region. Grab as many plausible new operations as you can and see which ones stand up to a feasibility study.

 

[jis]

It is a scoping document asking for public comment. So send them comments. I can assure you that just posting things here will have zero effect on the scope of the EIS, whereas sending in comments might have an impact. Of course if one is a resident of the scope area, their comments will probably be given more weight than comments from those that have very little direct connection to the area or to any stakeholder. At least that is the way these seem to unfold.

I have already sent in a comment stating that the New York - Scranton - Binghamton corridor should be considered as a feeder corridor for the NEC spine and developed as such, as future plans from NJ, PA and NY suggest. While it is somewhat peripheral to the primary scope of the EIS, it is in the scope area.

At the meeting s we will get a better sense of what actual criteria will be used for scoping. Needless to say that from both NJ-ARP and ESPA we will be submitting copious comments.

 

[afigg]

It is a scoping document asking for public comment. So send them comments. I can assure you that just posting things here will have zero effect on the scope of the EIS, whereas sending in comments might have an impact. Of course if one is a resident of the scope area, their comments will probably be given more weight than comments from those that have very little direct connection to the area or to any stakeholder. At least that is the way these seem to unfold.

I intend to submit comments once I get the opportunity to throughly read the scoping document and re-read the earlier NEC planning and NECIP documents.

Several random comments on thoughts skimming the scoping document:

-The preliminary Study Area for the North does not include the Downeaster to Portland ME. The Downeaster is certainly a feeder, albeit via a T connection, to the NEC from southern ME and eastern NH coastal areas.

-The FAA 2040 forecasts for total boardings at the core airports is pure fantasy, IMO. The world's daily oil production and oil prices in 30 years won't be there to support that type of growth in air travel, regardless of improvements in jet airplane fuel efficiencies. But the FAA numbers are what they will have to use in the study. Incorporating the complex macro economic effects of falling daily oil production - which is highly probable by 2030 - is beyond the scope of the Tier I EIS. Hope the plans will be flexible enough to be prepared for ridership growth on the electrified NEC to move above the High Growth rate projection in Figure 4.

 

[jis]

Several random comments on thoughts skimming the scoping document:

-The preliminary Study Area for the North does not include the Downeaster to Portland ME. The Downeaster is certainly a feeder, albeit via a T connection, to the NEC from southern ME and eastern NH coastal areas.

Yep. How it develops or not will impact ridership growths in the spine to some extent.

-The FAA 2040 forecasts for total boardings at the core airports is pure fantasy, IMO. The world's daily oil production and oil prices in 30 years won't be there to support that type of growth in air travel, regardless of improvements in jet airplane fuel efficiencies. But the FAA numbers are what they will have to use in the study. Incorporating the complex macro economic effects of falling daily oil production - which is highly probable by 2030 - is beyond the scope of the Tier I EIS. Hope the plans will be flexible enough to be prepared for ridership growth on the electrified NEC to move above the High Growth rate projection in Figure 4.

I doubt they will just use the FAA forecast. It is somewhat useful for the Super Express kind of service. Other than that it includes demographics that are very different from traffic that is primarily seen on the NEC.

Typically they use population growth, job and economic forecasts produced by the MPCs (Metropolitan Planning Committees) and TPC (Transportation Planning Committees) of which there are dozens along the NEC. These outfits take as input from census and additional economic projection data from both US and global sources and feed them into whatever models they use or develop/evolve. It is a pretty complex process. Amtrak NJT and MTA directly makes use of numbers produced by the NYMTC, the Connecticut RTPCs of which I think two or three are involved, and the two NJ RTPCs. These are not fly by night outfits and historically they tend to overestimate growth rather than underestimate since there is more to be gained in various ways by overestimating. Of course all such projections are fraught as one covers farther out horizons in time. I have seen some of the projections and assumptions used by NYMTC where I have a couple of friends, and to tell you the truth, they are not completely off the wall.

As for how Amtrak or NJT uses those numbers to arrive at ridership projections, I am not sure, but I am sure they have a small army of modelers running around burning CPU cycles wherever they can Usually such work is carried out be outside contractors for them, the likes of PB, and others.

But the thing to remember is that the predominant component of ridership on the NEC is not Amtrak, and never will be. There are a group of comments many of us will be submitting which will actually be somewhat opposed to certain HS proposals that cause more harm to the majority of riders of the NEC than is reasonable. There will of course be another set which will be very supportive of HS. And of course the business about getting new RoW based on real estate acquisition is going to be quite fascinating to say the least.

 

[Anderson]

What would be the process for tendering a comment while not going to a meeting? Much as I'd like to make the DC meeting...it's three-to-four hours each way for me to get there and back.

 

[PRR 60]

What would be the process for tendering a comment while not going to a meeting? Much as I'd like to make the DC meeting...it's three-to-four hours each way for me to get there and back.

http://www.necfuture.com/get_engaged/

 

[afigg]

There should have 4 of the Public Scoping meetings held by now. Are there any reports so far from those who attended a meeting?

 

[jis]

There should have 4 of the Public Scoping meetings held by now. Are there any reports so far from those who attended a meeting?

Nothing out of the ordinary. A bunch of displays showing the purpose of the project and the region covered by it. A quick presentation from the FRA with a handout of a newsletter. This is followed by local rail advocates who seem to have difficulty differentiating between a scoping discussion and peddling their own favorite hobby horse routing of something or the other, making their various pitches. And then finally just mingling and chatting about stuff.

I didn't learn anything that I did not already know at the Newark meeting. There were two cogent Scoping-like presentations from the public, one was from Joe Clift and the other from Al Papp. I was going to mention that fare structures and ease of traveling on single tickets crossing from one railroad to another should be part of the scope. Turns out Al already mentioned that.Later on I was told that someone else quoting me had asked Al to add that to his list of things. So I was grateful to both the proposer and Al.