Dear Governor Patrick:

Despite intense efforts by many interested parties over the past month, it appears unlikely that MassDOT will submit requests for any of the $2.4 billion of Florida’s returned High Speed Rail (HSR) funds for use on the North/South Rail Link (NSRL). APT strongly recommends the following funding requests for the NSRL: (1) $60 million for preliminary engineering work, and (2) $6 million to complete NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements. Time is of the essence‐‐funding requests are due to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) by 8:00 PM, Monday April 4, 2011.

Massachusetts has had three opportunities, in 2009, 2010, and now 2011, to request HSR funds for this important project, and each time the Commonwealth has declined. This underground South Station – North Station rail connection would add capacity to both of Boston’s congested commuter rail stations, create thousands of jobs, remove 50,000 cars from the region’s highways, and provide the infrastructure for a future 200+ mph HSR gateway station in the Commonwealth. This failure to act would be another missed opportunity by Massachusetts to construct what is arguably the most strategic and critical rail project for the Commonwealth and the New England region.

Massachusetts has fared poorly in earlier attempts to secure HSR funds. To date, the entire New England region has received only 2% of available federal HSR funds. These projects are far from what is considered “true” 200+ mph HSR. The “Knowledge Corridor” in western Massachusetts will have a top speed of only 60 mph and an average speed of 46 mph. The Haverhill bridge replacement, for which MassDOT is making an application, supports commuter rail traffic and the Portland Downeaster train which has a top speed of 79 mph and an average speed of only 50 mph. These projects pale in comparison to published HSR plans which project Boston to New York City trip times of 84 minutes, with a top speed of over 200 mph and an average speed of 160 mph. This “true” HSR project is a game changer for the economies of not only Massachusetts but also all of New England. The NSRL is Massachusetts’ investment to advance this critical project and make sure the Commonwealth stays in the hunt for future HSR funding to make this vision a reality.

MassDOT Secretary Jeffrey Mullan is doing a credible job under severe constraints but one must conclude the Commonwealth is making the wrong call in not advancing the NSRL and HSR. Secretary Mullan is working closely with Amtrak, clearly the correct thing to do. Amtrak is of the opinion that the NSRL is a very good project or it would not have funded a $4.5 million feasibility study on it. However Amtrak will not go out of its way to support the NSRL prior to the awarding of the latest HSR grants. Amtrak’s dilemma is that it must focus on the Washington to New York City segment of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) due to severe capacity and maintenance issues in New York and New Jersey.

Therein lies the problem – Amtrak’s interests and the Commonwealth’s interests are not necessarily aligned. Amtrak’s number one priority is the New York / New Jersey Gateway tunnel project and rail station expansion because Penn Station in Manhattan, and the Hudson River tunnels that connect to it, are at capacity today. The second Amtrak priority is a Washington to New York City 200+ mph HSR line. Travelers on the Washington ‐ New York HSR corridor will see dramatic system improvements in just over 10 years. Best case, the Commonwealth gets 200+ mph HSR service in 25 years, 15 years later. But Massachusetts’ 200+ mph HSR service is far from a firm commitment.

Both Amtrak and Congressman John Mica (R‐FL), Chair of the influential House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, have expressed the desirability, if not the need, for a true HSR demonstration project to convince Americans that 200+ mph HSR is worthy of their support and tax dollars. The Washington to Boston Northeast Corridor (NEC), with a distance of 455 miles, would be great route; but Washington to New York City, a distance of 225 miles, is more than good enough to make the case for HSR. The important point ‐‐ HSR does not need Boston or Massachusetts to prove its viability. But Boston and Massachusetts and New England do need HSR to remain competitive with other regions that will be the beneficiaries of “true” 200+ mph HSR services.

There are serious concerns that proactive, forward‐thinking states on the Southeastern Corridor will use their increasing political muscle to extend the 200+ mph HSR Northeast Corridor southward to Atlanta via Richmond and Charlotte. Their objective is rational and clearly understandable: after the New York to Washington HSR corridor is completed, either leapfrog or replace the New York to Boston HSR leg with the Southeast Corridor HSR leg running from Washington
to Atlanta. This would not only affect Massachusetts, it would also impact the rest of New England as well as the development of a federally designated high speed line to Canada from Boston. The bottom line is that Massachusetts’ future is far from assured, and there is a significant risk of falling behind economically. Is this delay in the Commonwealth’s best interests? If New England’s 200+ mph rail service is preempted, Massachusetts will be left with slower service than we have now. What’s that picture? Imagine the condition of the ageing Acela trainsets on the tired Northeast Corridor rail bed in 20 to 30 years.

It is in the Commonwealth’s and the region’s best interests that MassDOT submits requests for funds to complete NEPA reviews as well as preliminary engineering for the NSRL. MassDOT is in the best position to determine the amount of the request, but numbers presented in the past are in the vicinity of $6 million for NEPA to complete environmental reports and $60 million for preliminary engineering. The $6 million figure is also the amount that APT and other groups, at MassDOT’s recommendation, have requested as an earmark from the Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation.

The time to make this HSR funding request is short. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) must receive all project funding requests by 8:00 PM on Monday, April 4, 2011. To reiterate, the Association for Public Transportation along with many other transportation professionals and advocates are very disappointed that the Commonwealth is not making a funding request related to the NSRL any of the $2.4 billion of HSR funds recently returned by Florida. While a request for $60 million in preliminary engineering funds has been referenced in earlier reports, and APT would wholeheartedly endorse such a request, the Commonwealth should at minimum put in a request of $6 million for funding to complete all the NEPA environmental requirements.

Thank you in advance for your timely consideration of this very important matter.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Arena
President
Association for Public Transportation

Download

Massachusetts Association of Railroad Passengers (APT-MARP)

&

National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP)

with TrainRiders Northeast, Vermont Rail Action Network, and RI Association of Railroad Passenger

are pleased to announce a

New England Members Meeting, Saturday March 26th, 2011

Amtrak is serious about true high speed rail (avg. speed over 200mph). It recently published a report envisaging an enhanced Northeast Corridor (NEC) that would speed passengers from Boston to New York in less than 90 minutes and Boston to Washington in under 3 hours. Come to the NARP / APT-MARP Meeting to learn about this exciting vision.

Keynote Speaker

Albrecht “Al” P. Engel, P.E.

Vice President, High Speed Rail at Amtrak

“Amtrak’s Vision for True High Speed Rail”

Al Engel is VP of High Speed Rail for Amtrak. In this role he serves on the Executive Committee and provides leadership for advancing Amtrak’s high speed initiatives in the United States. Prior positions include VP of HSP for AECOM, Financial Advisor with Morgan Stanley Co., and President of Systra Consulting. Projects include planning for the California HSR project and the Amtrak Acela. Mr. Engel has serves on the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Board of Directors.

Click here to register.

29 November 2011

Statement to MBTA Transit Riders Oversight Committee (TROC) Concerning Green Airport and Logan Airport Transit Connections

As you will probably hear from the Secretary and the General Manager, on December 6th, MBTA commuter rail service will be extended to Green Airport in Providence. Please take note of this accomplishment – a high capacity public transportation rail just 1500 feet from what will become a major airport terminal for New England. When you get off a comfortable mode of transit, there’s just 1200 feet, enclosed moving skywalk between you and ticketing. I want you to take note of this accomplishment as we compare it to the state of public transportation at our own Logan Airport. The leadership at MassPort has consistently undermined public transportation projects in favor of the more profitable parking garages. When Rhode Island opens a new rail station while MassPort opens the new Economy parking garage, there are significant problems with priorities here.

MassPort’s public transportation priorities
a) Airport station blue line – 1 mile from the airport terminals
b) Silver Line – A bus that stops beyond the ends of the terminals, which was intentional
c) Even the proposed Urban Ring, which APT does not support due to the numerous flaws of this bus oriented transit (BRT) line, allowed only one bus stop in the very back corner of the West parking garage. A transportation project that MassDOT estimated would have carried 184 thousand riders a day and all MassPort was willing to give up is the last parking spot past terminal E.

There is an intentional undermining of the development of high-capacity and fast public transportation to and from Logan Airport, and that has to change. It has to change because Massachusetts is falling behind.

Take a look further south to our neighbors in the NY/NJ region. Newark International airport has a monorail that connects directly from the Northeast Corridor line, used by both Amtrak and NJ Transit, at the Newark Airport station. This monorail travels to all airport terminals as well as key infrastructure including parking garages.

Major US cities on the east coast are making direct connections between airport terminals and major public transportation systems including commuter rail infrastructure and Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. Their doing that because that’s what is going to move their economy forward. Why must Boston and Massachusetts continue to fall behind the rest of the East Coast? MassPort needs to step into the ball game and make public transportation a priority.

Rev. Michael Cooper
APT Co-President

Click here to download this document.

Click here to download the letter from ATP-NARP President Richard J. Arena and NARP President Ross B. Capon.

Massachusetts based The Association for Public Transportation and the National Association of Railroad Passengers have announced their intent to work together on areas of mutual interest and to collaborate on such matters when appropriate.

In addition, NARP President and CEO Ross B. Capon will speak at APT’s June 15 annual meeting at the Downtown Harvard Club at One Federal Street, Boston. Capon is a Newton, MA native who in 1971 became one of the first employees of the Commonwealth’s then fledgling Executive Office of Transportation & Construction where he was a railroad specialist. Capon has worked for NARP since 1975.

The event’s keynote speaker is Eugene K. Skoropowski, a transit advocate turned professional who left his Boston architectural team in the 1970’s to work for the MBTA. He recently concluded 10 spectacularly successful years as Managing Director of the California agency that manages the Capitol Corridor Amtrak trains that link Sacramento with the San Francisco Bay Area. He now works for HNTB, a preeminent architecture and engineering firm specializing in infrastructure.

APT will add “Massachusetts Association of Railroad Passengers” to its name and institute a new website address www.aptmarp.org.

APT President Richard J. Arena said, “The Obama Administration has changed the funding rules for rail transportation projects. Now states and regional transit authorities must have local funding assured prior to receiving a commitment for federal monies. NARP does a great job working the halls on Capitol Hill in Washington. APT is just as active on Beacon Hill in Boston. Together we make a very good team.”

“APT is the ideal local partner for NARP,” said Capon. “Its members understand the importance of Amtrak and intercity rail, and it has long been a proponent of the North Station/South Station Rail Link (NSRL) which will enable the extension of the electrified Northeast Corridor to New Hampshire and Maine.” He noted that, in 1991, NARP filed suit against the Federal Highway Administration and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in an attempt to force inclusion of the Rail Link in the Central Artery
Project.

NARP is the only national organization speaking for the users of passenger trains and rail transit. It has worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger rail in the U.S. Its mission, supported by over 18,000 individual members, is to work towards a modern, customer?focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want.

The Association for Public Transportation was founded in 1973 with the mission that effective, affordable, accessible public transportation, and the construction of strategic transportation infrastructure, is critical for the region’s economic prosperity and quality of life. APT authored the classic survival book “Car Free™ in Boston”, now in its tenth edition.

MOVE MASSACHUSETTS

Membership Meeting Friday, March 27th, 8:15-9:30 AM
Brown Rudnick One Financial Center, Eighteenth Floor, Dewey Square, Boston (across from South Station)

Imminent Challenges for New England’s Rail Future

with

Richard Arena
New England Regional Rail Coalition & Association for Public Transportation

and

Tom Irwin
New England Regional Rail Coalition & Conservation Law Foundation

Restore the Core – Access to the Regions Core (ARC) (April 2009)

Urgent Memo on Access to the Regions Core (ARC) (March 2009)

Strategic Transportation Infrastructure (presentation by Richard J. Arena to Lieutenant Governor’s transporation conference, October 2007)

13 May 2005
Congestion Pricing of Roadways: Can it Happen Here?

Yosef Sheffi, Professor of Engineering Systems and Director, Center for Transportation and Logistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

Paul Scapicchio, Boston City Councilor and Chairman of the Committee on Aviation and Transportation.

Yosef Sheffi: Urban transportation used to be my thing at the start of my career. But I have no interest in working in research when the answer is known.

When something is “free”, it will be overused. I stopped working in the field because it is not a technological problem but a political problem. I was at Cambridge University in England just when they were starting congestion pricing, just because there will be fewer cards, but better traffic.

They are now charging $16 a day to drive to central London because they are using the revenue [for transportation]. Clearly, in the City of Boston, it is not going to reduce the national oil consumption, but it is a leadership position. It can show the way how our country consumes less oil.

I was amazed how much hate mail I got when I wrote the article in the Globe. It became very personal. There are fair criticisms. There was fear in London that business would go down. But it went up. But there must be an alternative [to provide access]. In London, there is a cordon around downtown; one is charged £4 if he passes it. They also have prepaid passes. There is also fear of privacy issues. According to the CEO of Sun Microsystems, “You have no privacy in today’s age. Get over it.” There is nowhere in London you can avoid getting photographed and recorded.

There are some problems that will take place, such as parking operators.

It is my guess there should be a $10 charge [in Boston]. It would change behavior.

Paul Scapicchio: Background of Boston Latin School, Harvard, Northeastern University and Tufts. He has worked at Brown, Rudnick [which sponsors this meeting].

Why would a city councilor care about this? My district goes from the Airport through the Big Dig to South Station. I thank the professor, since all that hate mail I was getting is [now] going to him. I had been looking at congestion planning. Someone sent me a report as to what London was doing. I submitted it to the City Council. The next morning the television news was all over on it. The City should look at this. I have always been a bit of a provocateur. The City should be a national leader.

We have held on because of the types of people who lived here. We were always a city thinking forward and taking advantage of our brain power. In the Deloitte and Touche study, it said it needs someone in government to initiate the question. In London, the mayoral candidate ran on the issue.

Eighty percent of the people who e-mail me were against it. Now it is more balanced. There are differences with London. David Luberoff of the Harvard Business School wants to discuss this. The Boston Transportation Dept. is taking this up.

Q (Dan Wilson, Move Mass.) How would we do this?

A (Scapicchio) Anything we do has to go through the state legislature. We are going to have to explore it.

Q (Alan MacDonald) What about a mandate for everyone to pay, rather than to pay for entry from certain roads?

A We haven’t looked in that detail. We have to look at [the] alternative, public transportation.

What we propose is a small zone, maybe a square mile. But the media made it sound like there would be toll booths around the town.

Q (Bob Sturgis) Is congestion a good thing?

A Density is a good thing. We supersize our houses. Congestion meaning people living in pockets is good, but rather sprawl is not good.

Q What was the e-mail?

A Not polite. But an inquisitiveness downtown. Six of the state’s worst intersections were downtown. People could see the advantage. In the City, there is 70% support. In Cambridge, unanimous support.

Q [What about a] “fare” Lexus Lane: Drivers would pay more, granting credits to slow right hand drivers?

A With technology, it is amazing what you can do.

Q Is there a way we can package this as a transportation PLAN?

A Absolutely. Show people that the revenues will go to public transportation. The problem is that the MBTA is one entity, the Mass. Turnpike Authority another entity. It is difficult.

Q (Curtis Davis) Have you seen examples of how it is developed comprehensively and with policies evening the costs of transportation? Rather than people being boxed in or constrained?

A That how you want to position us. In London, they didn’t have a chance to do it. The just implemented it quickly. In one year. Do it; do it right away.

Q Can we use “global warming” or “global resiliency”?

A I am searching for this. Last week a study was released that Boston has the seventh most congested traffic in the country. But I can’t bring this up as a Boston city councilor.

Q When you look at how the T runs out of the city, you see [gateways] at Alewife or Quincy. How do your approach this, using the T to spearhead this?

A Congestion is a tremendous problem at the T. They can’t pay for it. How do we pay for it? It can’t come from City Hall. We get a vituperative reply from the Governor.

Q (Vineet Gupta, Boston Transportation Dept.) Where would the boundary go?

Comment (Dan Wilson) This is a question for you.

Gupta: Thirty percent of daily trips are for Boston. In the spirit of this being a discussion, we have been talking on the supply side, i.e. more parking.

A But we have been doing this $29 parking; every inch of the City has a parking meter.

Q To build on this, we have a cap on PUBLIC parking garages, but as we build downtown, these facilities are providing their own parking. Perhaps we can do something with Zip Cars.

A (Gupta) But there are not new office buildings in Boston, rather residential parking.

Q What about the administrative costs of a camera-based system—Would this [be self-defeating]?

A (Sheffi) The technology now permits this. You can change the price over the course of the day automatically. The camera is used for enforcement exclusively.

Because of the technology, London wanted to do it right away.

(Scapicchio) Because of the technology, 28 people in total run Zip Car.

(Sheffi) It is amazingly inexpensive.

Q (Richard Garver) What is the problem we are addressing? It is in the suburbs, not here. You want to reduce sprawl. The businesses are building in the suburbs. What you might want to do is charge for driving out there.

What you need is a one-term Democratic governor.

A (Sheffi) It is tough to provide an alternative in the suburbs because of the spread. There is poor public transportation there.

(Schapicchio) Route 128 is a problem, a six-mile [?-ed.] belt around the City of Boston.

Q Terminology. We don’t use the term congestion pricing any more. It sounds like a tax. We call it “value pricing”. You are getting some value out of this.

A (Schapicchio) You bring up an important point. In other cities, they build their own trolley line. People know that a tax would go directly to transportation.

Comment (from Somerville): [There could be] A $4 toll going in to Boston or a 10¢ gas tax. But people are paying for lattes.

Suggestion: (1) Make a survey of tolls around the country.

(2) You focus on the health costs; the EPA is studying this. Norfolk and Middlesex counties are suffering from premature deaths.

The benefit is great from getting this under control.

Comment: A year or two ago, a friend from Canada came in by plane and had to drive to Wilmington. Their first statement: “Why would anyone want to live here?”

Perhaps people would want to pay more to have a better life experience.

Q Other parts of the country are attracting people who care about quality of life and lack of pollution. Some companies send people around the country. But they don’t send them to Portland, Oregon, because they stay there.

What are the key things about Boston? The quality of life.

Who will contribute to this? Everyone will suffer if people choose not to live here.

A (Schapicchio) People are moving out. They are making the same wages, but getting much more for it.

Q This is a great idea: To sell this is an economic answer. People who live outside the city and drive in are getting a free ride so to speak.

As an MBTA employee, it is a packaging problem: People who are sending you hate mail see no alternative. You impose a fee, but there is a long time to reflect in new transit terminals.

Q There is less and less transportation funding.

A Other cities expand outward, but if you look at a space photo, you see other cities sharing the same demographic[s]…

Q And those other cities have no developable area.

Q People are sheepish. The average person asks why should I pay for this when I already pay an excise tax. And now I am paying for this again. You have to re-tool peoples’ minds.

Curtis Davis: We are a forum for dialogue. We have to know how to approach this. In London, they change their boundaries every fourteen or fifteen years. We cannot do this.

There is a transportation plan from the Governor on the table now.

The real question is not the politicians, rather we have to lead the leaders. We need political structures. We need regional governance, not regional governments. We won’t have country again.

Notes on Move Massachusetts meetings are provided as a public service and do not represent an official statement of Move Massachusetts. The Association for Public Transportation is a member of Move Massachusetts.