EMFRC Provides Comments on Massachusetts State Rail Plan

The following letter, collaboratively drafted by EMFRC constituents was sent to MassDOT providing comments on the (Draft) Massachusetts Rail Plan.

 

September 23, 2010
Mr. Ned Codd, P.E.
Manager of Plan Development
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116

 

Subject: Comments - Massachusetts Rail Plan

 

Reference: MassDOT acceptance of written comments concerning the Massachusetts Rail Plan
(on line at www.mass.gov/massdot/freightandrailplan.) Public review period September 9th to

 

September 24th 2010.
a: Facsimile and 1st Class Mail

 

Dear Mr. Codd:

 

The MassDOT Massachusetts Freight Plan projects Massachusetts freight volumes to increase 70 percent by 2030 and that “construction of all investment rail projects would increase future [rail] mode share from 6.1% to 7.1% by 2035”. Only a one percent change in share. This is an astounding statistic.

 

If MassDOT’s assessment is correct, this translates to significantly more truck trips, with uneven distribution of these trips throughout the State. As the largest consuming area, one has to assume that Metro-Boston will see the largest increase in truck trips, further fueled by the current retreat of logistics and distribution centers to mid-state locations.

 

The Eastern Massachusetts Freight Rail Coalition (EMFRC) is an independent body representing freight transportation interests including shippers, carriers, terminal operators, freight forwarders, municipalities and nonprofit groups in Eastern Massachusetts. Our constituents understand the connection between freight rail and economic development and have been awaiting the release of the Rail Plan for some time. As active participants in the Boston MPO’s Regional Transportation Advisory Council, we provide specific input on approaches to develop balanced transportation systems that would put freight rail on equal footing with other transportation projects.

 

Our comments herein are largely focused on the freight elements of the Rail Plan. We see untapped opportunity for MassDOT to establish programs and foster policies to unleash the full potential of Commonwealth-owned and privately owned rail assets for both passenger and freight purposes. As a return for their investment as taxpayers, the citizens of the commonwealth deserve continuing benefits of reduced traffic congestion, less pollutants, economic development, job growth and quality of life possible through focused passenger and freight rail initiatives. We believe we can do better than a one percent modal shift in freight to rail.

 

At the outset, we are concerned about the abbreviated public comment period. Our constituents personally attended the Massachusetts Rail Plan Public Hearing held in Worcester on September 16th. It was not particularly well attended and was the only such public forum. The average citizen will not understand the Plan and likely will never see the Plan. They ultimately will, however, be affected.

 

More concerning, we did not see an executive summary, implementation plan, implications or conclusions. These sections are necessary to allow planners, legislators, municipalities, business entities and others to quickly understand what the Plan means to them, to the Commonwealth and understand MassDOT’s recommendations. This Plan is purported to lay out a 20 year perspective. With the Commonwealth making significant financial commitments to rail, $100 million for the purchase of CSX lines alone, more outreach is required and clearly more distillation of the material is a necessity for inclusion in the final document.

 

We commend MassDOT for the depth of the statistical and factual material that describes the current state of the rail infrastructure. Much of this we understand to be mandated by USDOT. However, the Plan, as presented, lacks an overarching transportation vision for the Commonwealth and the steps to achieve that vision. We hoped that reform efforts and creation of the new MassDOT would provide that vision. Unfortunately, we don’t see it at this stage.

 

Specifically, we were disappointed that the plan overlooked key strategic issues, including: 

• Strategies and related infrastructure to promote and integrate freight rail with maritime freight at key ports, particularly Boston and New Bedford.

•  Short-sea shipping and rail synergies so as to allow Massachusetts to participate in programs actively being promoted by the USDOT.

•  Plans demonstrating how rail assets can accelerate economic development programs.  (Other states invest directly in rail for the purpose of attracting jobs.)

•  Discussion and 20 year implications of diminished freight rail capacity and related operations into the Boston metropolitan area and its impact on quality of life and cost of goods.

•  Strategies to expanded use of state-owned commuter rail lines for both passenger and freight purposes. Historically in the Commonwealth, commuter rail discourages and effectively displaces freight.

•  A corridor-specific assessment of expected highway congestion and capacity within I-495, particularly as the national rail carriers rely more heavily on truck drayage for “the last mile” from their centralized intermodal rail terminals in Worcester and Ayer. 
• The strategic role of the Commonwealth’s 12 short line railroads as an alternative to extensive truck drays from centralized rail terminals to the urban centers of highest consumption.

•  Commitment to establishing an Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) and state level industrial zoning overlays urgently needed to preserve and establish economic opportunities for retaining and establishing jobs/industrial and distribution businesses in Massachusetts.

•  Public policy implications resulting from the plan’s analysis of the State’s transportation assets and the course of current initiatives.

•  An explicit plan for distributing bulk and intermodal freight through all modes and shared assets through and within Massachusetts and New England.

We would like MassDOT to address, in the final Plan, how freight is specifically expected to flow hroughout Eastern Massachusetts. We see the need for economic analysis of the various modal alternatives. This analysis would then enable an assessment of appropriate public policy based on the resulting economics. We will need to plan for this growth or face potential highway gridlock.  No meaningful percentage of current truck movements will be converted to rail deliveries without public policy involvement. Increases in rail shipments will most likely come from conversion of truck to intermodal movements – still employing truck delivery for the last mile. We did not see sufficient discussion of the potential strategic role of the Commonwealth’s 12 short line railroads. These local lines can increase localized rail freight delivery if supported by appropriate public policy. The economic tradeoffs and policy options for the “first and last mile” need to be surfaced so as to evaluate how best to reduce the length of the likely “last mile” truck delivery.

 

Other states have embraced short lines as a critical component in their overall transportation planning and policy making. In fact, the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation has been upportive of federal tax credit legislation to encourage private investment in rail infrastructure for these entities. It is incongruent for MassDOT not to include them more prominently in the Massachusetts State Rail Plan.

 

Freight rail’s small market share wasn’t caused by the lack of rail infrastructure. We believe freight moved from rail to truck primarily due to the economics and public policy of the past, which then resulted in the rail freight infrastructure being eliminated and the land repurposed.

 

Policies need to change. Unless the economics of small 20 acre transload facilities inside 128 can compete with large scale facility in Worcester or Ayer, we are forever wed to longer “last mile” truck drays. Class I railroad policies of scale work in other parts of the United States, but Eastern Massachusetts needs a transportation plan and supporting policies that recognize this reality.

 

We are concerned that the calculation of regional “benefits” for rail projects were not integrated with other elements required to foster economic development -- zoning, non-transportation infrastructure (e. g. sewer/water), workforce, etc. We do not see an approach of evaluating rail projects as an enabler of comprehensive economic development plans. Chapters 7 and 8 were viewed as too qualitative and appeared to be written to support MassDOT‘s current initiatives, rather than a quantitative approach that would objectively affirm the current initiatives or surface new needed initiatives.

 

We do encourage work on the IRAP program and the Freight-Intensive Land Use Development and Preservation Program. Investment decisions for these programs should not only consider direct rail access but good access to the highway network to the nearest transload location or intermodal terminal.

 

We see the need for increased legislative involvement on Beacon Hill in evaluating and setting overall Massachusetts’s transportation public policy to support an economic climate for business growth. Local zoning works against the health of the overall region. The impending closing of the Beacon Park rail yard in Allston as the last functional freight rail distribution point within the urban core shows clearly that no one wants infrastructure in their backyard. The reality is that it has to exist to make the region functional and competitive. Continued focus on conversion of industrial land to high end development has stagnated. Other states are broadening their economic reach through transportation and logistics policies that preserves this critical land. The opportunity (and change in distribution patterns) through the Panama Canal widening is real.

 

While large ships may not dock directly in our ports, short-sea shipping will require more maritime capacity and adjoining rail and logistics staging facilities. We do not see adequate protection of land and facilities for this purpose and efficient connections to the rail network.

 

As we said at the outset, we believe additional outreach by MassDOT on freight and rail issues is a necessity. We call on Secretary Mullan to establish a senior leadership post within in MassDOT to specifically address freight rail, intermodal and motor carrier issues. It’s too deeply buried within the “Transit” arm of MassDOT to provide sufficient visibility and influence on these critical issues.

 

We again complement the work you have done to date and look forward to the development of the final Plan.

 

Sincerely,

 

Richard Flynn
Executive Director, Eastern Massachusetts Freight Rail Coalition
59 Fountain Street, Suite 301
Framingham, MA 01702
richard.flynn@emfrc.org

 

cc:

 

Deval L. Patrick, Governor – Commonwealth of Massachusetts

 

Timothy P. Murray, Lt Governor – Commonwealth of Massachusetts

 

Jeffrey B. Mullan, Secretary and CEO of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation

 

Richard A. Davey, MassDOT's Rail and Transit Administrator

 

Gregory Bialecki, Secretary, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development

 

Therese Murray, President of the Senate, 186th General Court, Commonwealth of Mass.

 

Robert DeLeo, Speaker of the House, 186th General Court, Commonwealth of Mass.

 

Senator Scott P. Brown, Massachusetts

 

Senator John F. Kerry, Massachusetts

 

Congressman Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts, 8th

 

Congressman William Delahunt, Massachusetts, 10th

 

Congressman Barney Frank, Massachusetts, 4th

 

Congressman Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, 9th

 

Congressman James McGovern, Massachusetts, 3rd

 

Congressman Ed Markey, Massachusetts, 7th

 

Congressman Richard E Neal, Massachusetts, 2nd

 

Congressman John Olver, Massachusetts, 1st

 

Congressman John Tierney, Massachusetts, 6th

 

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts, 5th

Massachusetts Rail Plan Public Hearing and Plan Release

Massachusetts Rail Plan Public Hearing and Plan Release

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation invites you to attend a public hearing on the Massachusetts Rail Plan, as part of the public review process for the draft Plan.

The findings and recommendations of the Massachusetts Rail Plan are based on a comprehensive evaluation of the Commonwealth’s freight and passenger rail transportation system: its operations, and effect on economic development and quality of life. The Plan examines the trade-offs between a range of investments in the rail system. The plan further meets the Federal requirement for a State Rail Plan. The public hearing is the last step in developing the plan and follows up on two rounds of public meetings and other outreach conducted during the planning process.

The Rail Plan Public Hearing will be held, Thursday, September 16th from 4:00 to 6:00 pm at Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center, Union Hall (Second Floor), 2 Washington Square, Worcester, MA

MassDOT is accepting written comments during the public review period beginning September 9th and ending September 24th 2010. The MassDOT address is Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116. This Massachusetts Rail Plan is available on line at www.mass.gov/massdot/freightandrailplan. For questions or additional information, please contact the Office of Transportation Planning at (617)-973-7313, TTY:(617)-973-7306. or planning@state.ma.us

Work slated for missing rail link - The Boston Globe

Work slated for missing rail link - The Boston Globe

Gov. Christie to New York-area port authority: Build barge-to-rail facility. (Why not the same approach here?)

Yesterday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to divert about 1,000 trash trucks per day from state roads by building a barge-to-rail facility at Conrail’s Greenville Yards in Jersey City.

The facility, which could become fully operational by 2013, would eliminate 15 million vehicle miles traveled in New Jersey, replace up to 360,000 open trash trucks with sealed containers moving via rail, cut the cost of highway maintenance and “significantly reduce harmful air pollutants,” Christie said in a prepared statement.

Currently, the majority of New York City’s trash is trucked through the port authority’s Hudson River crossings in unsealed open-topped containers and transported on New Jersey roads. To establish the barge-to-rail facility, the authority needs to make improvements to decades-old track and infrastructure, and finalize a land purchase deal, said Christie.

Track in Greenville Yard connects with CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway. Sealed container shipments would add only one train per day to the state’s freight-rail system, said Christie.

“The port authority can act immediately by completing its purchase of this land, investing the resources needed to build a first-class operation, and moving waste off our roads and onto rail in sealed, safe containers,” he said.

Contact Progressive Railroading editorial staff.

Who pays... Who benefits?

What is the total cost to Massachusetts taxpayer's for the state's investment in the relocation of the CSX freight yards from Allston to Worcester?

How is the MBTA going to pay for the increased capital cost and the operating cost of a 45 mile double track main line that will be used nearly exclusively for commuter trains to Worcester?

How is the MBTA going to deal with the increased volume of commuter trains going into South Station resulting from the combined increase of volume from Worcester and the South Coast rail project?

What happens to all the freight that will be dropped of the trains in Worcester? Doesn't a lot of it want to go into the Hub?

Is this a carbon neutral project or worse? Supposedly more Worcester to Boston commuters on trains... pushing more inbound rail freight from other states (via Albany New York) onto the Hub's highways for its final delivery via truck.

What really is going to replace the freight Yards in Allston?

Got questions... Ask them?

What will be the economic impact of CSX’s planned freight yard expansion in Worcester?

"Getting Back On Track"

What will be the economic impact of CSX’s planned freight yard expansion in Worcester?

By Sandy Quadros Bowles

Special to the Worcester Business Journal
05/10/10

A planned $100 million expansion of CSX Corp.’s freight rail facilities near Franklin Street in Worcester has been heralded by state and local officials as a major boon for economic development. But just how many jobs the expansion will create, and what the impact on the local neighborhood will be, remains to be seen.

Divided City

One unabashed supporter of the project is Worcester City Manager Michael V. O’Brien, who calls the development “an absolute game-changer for the local economy.”

The biggest boost to local jobs will come during the two-year construction phase — slated to begin in late 2012. An estimated 376 construction workers will be needed. But once the yard is established, the permanent jobs will be a more modest 42, according to CSX.

The height of bridges along the railroad line between Interstate 495 and the New York line to accommodate double-stack freight trains, freeing up tracks, which will make room for additional commuter trains. The state will take responsibility for raising highway bridges, while CSX will lower the tracks.

Work on the double-stacking will add an estimated 464 construction jobs, according to CSX.

CSX’s decision to move forward with the Worcester expansion has garnered attention in the rail industry, according to Tom Judge, editor of the Chicago-based trade journal Railway Track & Structures.

“It’s being talked about in the industry,” Judge said, explaining that his readers — many of them engineers for large contractors — would likely be enlisted to help build out the Worcester yard.

Judge also said that CSX is not alone in its decision to move forward with a large-scale expansion. There are several sizeable projects across the country in the planning stages.

“They’re building capacity projects now so that when traffic does come back they can handle it,” Judge said.

Indeed, freight has slowed right along with the overall economy. According to the most recent statistics from the Association of American Railroads, railroad freight traffic was up 1.4 percent for the week ending Feb. 6 when compared with the same week in 2009. But that number is still well below — 14.7 percent — traffic during that week in 2008.

Commuters’ Dreams

The real boon, according to O’Brien, is the possibility of more commuter trains, which will encourage both employees and businesses to relocate to Worcester, where property and commercial costs run significantly lower than in Boston and the surrounding areas.

But not everyone shares O’Brien’s rosy outlook. Neighborhood groups have raised concerns about potential added traffic and pollution.


CSX “sees us as a big plum,” said City Councilor Philip P. Palmieri, whose district includes the project area. “They want to eat us, core and all.”

He said the project “needs to be done right. Negotiations need to be a little more serious. This wouldn’t even be an issue if the commuter rail weren’t involved.”

The freight yard project is just part of a multi-year rail transportation plan between the state and CSX. Officials hope the plan will expand commuter options with the addition of 20 trains on the Worcester-Boston line by 2012.

Joining Palmieri in criticizing the plan is the Grafton Hill Business Association, led by its chairman and president, George Kerxhalli. He said his group was “blind-sided by the project,” which he said is located “on our front door, our side door, our back door.”

He raised concerns about the impact the freight yard expansion would have on bordering neighborhoods, including Oak Hill, Grafton Hill, Vernon Hill, Green Hill and portions of Shrewsbury Street.

“The freight yard is ringed by neighborhoods,” he said.

He also questioned the “air, noise and visual pollution” that could result from further work on the freight yard, as well as plans to cut off Putnam Lane, which serves as a connector between Shrewsbury and Franklin Streets.

In response to neighborhood concerns, CSX has offered to alter its original access plan so that traffic could move directly onto an Interstate 290 exit ramp rather than travel along Grafton Street, which neighborhood groups had opposed.

“They’ve moved marginally,” Palmieri said of this proposed change. “It’s a long way from resolution.”

O’Brien said CSX continues to work to make modifications to the project in response to neighbors’ concerns.

“There’s a clear recognition they want to be good neighbors,” he said. “I’m very optimistic we will continue to bring these issues forward.”

Beyond Worcester

Expanding the CSX freight yard on the city’s East Side from 28 to 51 acres serves as one aspect of the statewide project. The expansion also includes moving CSX freight operations from Allston to Worcester and modernizing and expanding the intermodal terminal in Worcester.

CSX officials have said the freight yard work would include replacing some older structures at the site. CSX also plans to upgrade stormwater management, landscaping and lighting.

While the debate on the freight yard expansion has been local, the true economic impact is indeed regional, at least according to O’Brien.

“All the pieces come together for this project,” he said. “This is about positioning not just Worcester, but the state.”

“It makes perfect economic sense for everyone,” he added.

The Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce has gotten behind the expansion as well.

“It’s a true win for the city, and it’s something that could have an impact for generations to come,” said Michael Lanava, business resource manager at the chamber.

The added jobs will help the city in the short term, he said. In the long term, the transportation upgrades could create “spin-off industries” that provide distribution and storage.

“It’s all positive,” he said.

But Kerxhalli argues that the promise of more commuter trains between Worcester and Boston will not be the “magic bullet” some believe.

He said that commuters have been moving west to take advantage of lower housing prices for many years, without making a serious impact on the economy.

He also questioned how the CSX yards have benefited the city in the past. Doubling the size, he said, will not add anything positive to the equation, Kerxhalli said.

“CSX freight yard has been loading and unloading trains (for years) and we don’t see the benefits,” he said. “What benefits has Worcester got from that to date?”

Sandy Quadros Bowles is a freelance writer based in Worcester.

More on Worcester...

CSX plans are getting fair review

From The Worcester Telegram:
By: Nick Kotsopoulos Politics and the City

Despite how they are being portrayed by some, state Rep. Vincent A. Pedone, District 2 City Councilor Philip P. Palmieri and other East Side community leaders really do want to see CSX Corp. expand its Worcester freight yard and make it the new rail freight hub for New England.

While they have not been shy about raising issues related to the expansion plan, they don’t view themselves as obstructionists or a bunch of NIMBY yahoos. Instead, they simply want to make sure the expansion does not negatively impact the quality of life on the East Side.

You can’t blame them for that.

“This is our community and this (project) will change the face of our neighborhood and city for years to come,” Mr. Pedone said. “I want this project to happen because it will be good for Worcester, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of our part of the city. We are working with the people at CSX on making changes to this plan for the better. They understand where we are coming from, and they have been accommodating and very reasonable.”

In fact, CSX has invited city officials and community leaders to Atlanta, at the company’s expense, to view the downtown freight yard it has in that city, so they can see firsthand how a state-of-the-art freight yard operates and the positive impact it can have on a community. City Manager Michael V. O’Brien said arrangements for that trip are in the works.

CSX wants to double the size of its freight yard on Franklin Street, from 23 acres to 51 acres. The $100 million project is part of a private-public partnership between the state and CSX to reposition its freight operations in Massachusetts, so the rail line between Worcester and Boston can be opened up to more commuter trains — as many as 20 more daily commuter trains by 2012.

To facilitate the expansion, CSX has to acquire 11 parcels of privately owned commercial properties near the existing freight yard, and acquire portions of public streets. Also, Putnam Lane, which connects Franklin Street to Shrewsbury Street, will have to be closed.

While much of the attention has focused on objections East Side residents have raised about the plan, city officials are also said to have an issue with the bridge to be built on Franklin Street, while state highway officials apparently have concerns about traffic on Grafton Street and access to Interstate 290 from the freight yard.

“This is not just about people of the East Side and the closing of Putnam Lane,” Mr. Pedone said. “We’re not the ones holding this up. Every level of government is involved and they have raised issues of their own, as well.”

Mr. Pedone, Mr. Palmieri and city officials have been quietly meeting with CSX officials to see if they can iron out the concerns that have been raised. The company is said to be spending “a significant amount of money” on developing alternative plans to address those concerns, especially the closing of Putnam Lane.

“The ball is moving forward,” Mr. Palmieri said. “We are diligently trying to reach some resolution. (CSX) is making a real effort, but I think it’s because we have finally gotten their attention. They’re hearing us now, and I don’t think that was the case before.”

Meanwhile, Gary J. Vecchio, president of the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association, said criticism that he and other East Side community leaders have received about objections they have raised about the CSX plan is unfair. He said neighborhood residents aren’t looking to block the plan, they only want to make it better.

“I’ve never seen the entire East Side of the city so united on an issue like this,” Mr. Vecchio said. “The things we are asking for are not unreasonable; they are only meant to make this plan better for everyone.”

Rep. Neal tours Grafton & Upton rail yard

GRAFTON — U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, today toured the Grafton & Upton Railroad, a 16.5-mile short-line freight railroad running through Grafton, Upton, Hopedale and Milford.

Mr. Neal visited the G&U's North Grafton yard where the line joins the Worcester-Framingham line shared by commuter rail and CSX Transportation, and also toured the company's new 22-acre transloading yard in West Upton, designed as an intermodal facility for truck and train carried freight, and the Hopedale yard, which features a 100,000 square-foot spur-served industrial building. The Hopedale yard is also adjacent to a million square feet of vacant space in the Draper Mill. Town officials hope the railroad can play some role in reactivating that facility.

The first phase of the railroad's upgrade, from North Grafton to West Upton, has been completed, and includes the 22-acre transloading facility built on a former landfill off of Maple Avenue in Upton. Phase 2, from West Upton to Hopedale, is under way. Phase 3, from Hopedale to Milford, will require a complete rebuilding of the line, and will commence when Phase 2 is completed. The project is expected to open up economic development opportunities all along the rail corridor, including truck-rail transloading operations.

South Coast Rail On-Track

SOUTH COASTTODAY.COM (Massachusetts)

Transportation Chief Sees Progress with Rail Extension

By Brian Boyd

March 30, 2010 12:00 AM

 

NEW BEDFORD — The state’s top transportation official said Monday the long-awaited goal of extending commuter rail to New Bedford and Fall River is gaining steam from recent victories.

Secretary of Transportation Jeffrey B. Mullan visited the city to discuss ongoing and future transportation projects with city officials and state representatives. Mullan said by taking initial steps toward the $1.4 billion extension, state officials are showing their commitment to the project, and a vote of confidence can help a project move forward.

“Projects need momentum,” Mullan said, answering a reporter’s question. “I’m a big fan of that. I understand that implicitly.”

In February, the state was awarded $20 million in federal grant money to reconstruct three freight rail bridges, which is considered a critical part of the infrastructure needed for the South Coast Rail Project.

State officials have also reached an agreement to buy rail lines from CSX Corp., including about 30 miles of track south of Taunton necessary for advancing the rail project.

Mullan described the deal with CSX as “another momentum builder.”

He said state officials would not arrange the deal with CSX the way they did or seek the federal dollars if they were not committed to building the commuter rail extension. He also said he hoped the planned construction efforts would help propel the project forward.

He referred to the early days of the Central Artery-Tunnel Project in Boston to make his point about the value of momentum. The state knocked down four bridges in South Boston long before it began work on the Ted Williams Tunnel, but the earlier work helped set the larger effort in motion, he said.

“Once you start seeing people out in the field building and getting ready for it, then people start to become believers, funders get behind you. It’s a demonstration to members of Congress that this is the commonwealth’s priority.”

He credited Gov. Deval Patrick’s support for the commuter rail project for the progress that has been made.

“We have moved this project forward more in three years than it had been moved forward in the prior 20,” Mullan said.

Rep. Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford, who is a member of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation, arranged the meeting.

“Today’s meeting definitely served its purpose,” Canessa said afterward. “We had an excellent and frank conversation with the secretary of transportation.”

Other transportation-related topics came up during the secretary’s visit.

Mullan said the state should be able to advertise bids for the Route 18 reconstruction project in August.

Also, Mayor Scott W. Lang pressed Mullan on keeping a Registry of Motor Vehicles branch in the city’s downtown, arguing it has been an economic boon for the surrounding area.

“The registry [in] downtown New Bedford has created jobs all around that area and has led to a dramatic investment by the property owners contiguous and down the block from the registry,” Lang said. “It is an important part of beginning to build that upper Union Street area.”

Mullan took notes while Lang spoke and said he agreed with his view, but keeping the registry downtown must be financially feasible.

“We want to stay downtown,” Mullan said.

 

DOT Says Freight ‘Hierarchy’ Favors Water, Rail

The Journal of Commerce reports:

Funding strategy tries to take shipments off trucks until last miles

The Department of Transportation’s second-highest official told senators that DOT’s preference for freight shipping is keep goods on waterways and rail as much as possible, getting them away from trucks except for the final delivery.

Deputy Secretary John Porcari made the remarks before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in a March 24 hearing on use of transportation policy to improve energy security and the environment.

Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., asked Porcari whether the concept of DOT’s discretionary “TIGER” grant program could work in the next multi-year surface transportation bill. That $1.5 billion pool of stimulus funds allowed DOT to send grants to multi-modal projects that cross state lines, instead of disbursing money under state-allocation formulas or for specific transport modes.

Porcari said that “in our goods movement hierarchy -- where we want to keep goods movement on water as long as possible, and then on rail as long as possible and truck it for the last miles -- it’s a big step forward.”

He also said “I think the TIGER grants point the way to the future in intermodal transportation.” The largest category of awards, Porcari said, “was freight rail capacity projects, which have a number of environmental benefits including reduced fuel consumption but also take some of the goods movement off the highway network and move it through more efficient modes.”

Those comments follow similar remarks by DOT Secretary Ray LaHood in an interview with The Journal of Commerce.

LaHood said DOT policy has “paid a lot of attention to the freight rail companies” to both expand passenger train service and draw freight off highways. “We’ve made a huge investment in their opportunity to build capacity,” he said. And the DOT is working with ports “again, to take trucks off the road and to really utilize the marine highways.”

See also “Ray LaHood's Confidence in Collaboration” and the attached interview transcript.

Contact John D. Boyd at jboyd@joc.com.

More Worcester neighborhoods express concern over CSX freight yard plans

(The following story by Nick Kotsopoulos appeared on the Worcester Telegram & Gazette website on March 19, 2010.)

WORCESTER, Mass. — Two more neighborhood groups have expressed concerns about CSX Corp.’s plan to expand its freight yard on Franklin Street.

The Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association last night made it clear it has a big problem with the planned closing of Putnam Lane, which is necessary so there can be additional track capacity to handle the freight and commuter rail traffic coming into the terminal.

With that closing, there would no longer be any roadway connection between Franklin and Shrewsbury streets, from Union Station to Piccadilly Plaza on Shrewsbury Street.

While the Shrewsbury Street group does not oppose the CSX plans, its president said it “will not tolerate” the closing of Putnam Lane because it is essential for public safety, commuter convenience and economic development.

“We’ve made it clear to CSX that this connection is essential to our neighborhood,” said Gary J. Vecchio, group president. “When they built Interstate 290, they cut off our neighborhood to much of the city. When they built the Worcester Center (Galleria mall), they cut us off again. We can’t be shut off again, and we will not be shut off again.”

Meanwhile, members of the Grafton Hill Neighborhood Association fear an increase in truck traffic and air pollution will result with the CSX expansion. With the CSX freight yard’s entrance being relocated to Grafton Street, Grafton Hill residents fear that truck traffic going west will use Grafton Street as a way to connect to the Massachusetts Turnpike or Route 20.

“When you have the kind of expansion they are talking about, it’s going to bring a lot more truck traffic, noise and pollution,” said Michael Troiano, honorary chairman of the Grafton Hill group. “That doesn’t seem like a good trade-off just to get some extra commuter rail trains here.”

About 400 trucks per day use the CSX freight yard; the expansion is expected to add another 80 to 100 truck trips per day.

CSX wants to double the size of its freight yard on Franklin Street from 23 acres to 51 acres and make Worcester its new rail freight hub for New England. The $100 million project is part of a private-public partnership between the state and CSX to reposition its freight operation in Massachusetts so the rail line between Worcester and Boston can be opened to more commuter trains, with a goal of adding 20 more commuter trains by 2012.

As an alternative to closing Putnam Lane, District 2 City Councilor Philip P. Palmieri last night broached the idea of having a bridge built that would connect Franklin Street to the back side of Shrewsbury Street, in the area of Albany Street, Nebraska Street or Fantasia Drive.

He said Putnam Lane, while an important connection, is a “horse-and-buggy” roadway because it is so narrow. He said a bridge would provide a much better connection between Franklin and Shrewsbury streets.

“CSX has to step up even more now to alleviate this exceptionally difficult issue,” Mr. Palmieri said. “We want to move forward positively on this, but we won’t be a rubber stamp, that’s for sure.”

Councilor-at-Large Joseph M. Petty said CSX has been a good partner on this project. He said the company has not attempted to hide anything and has shown a willingness to address neighborhood concerns.

“In the next couple of weeks, we should have a better idea of where things are going with this project in terms of traffic, noise, lighting and the Putnam Lane issue,” he said.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Public Stakeholder Meetings Scheduled:Draft State Freight and Rail Plan.

Transmittal to Members of the Central Massachusetts Regional Railroad Advisory Group:

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) will be hosting a series of public stakeholder meetings to present information and receive input on the draft findings and recommendations of the State Freight and Rail Plan. As indicated below, the CMRPC staff will host the April 1st meeting to be held at Union Station in Worcester. We hope you all can attend.

The draft findings and recommendations are based on a comprehensive evaluation of the Commonwealth’s freight and rail transportation system, their operations and effect on economic development and quality of life. The evaluation includes all modes - air, rail, truck and maritime transportation. The Plan examines the freight and rail infrastructure and operations in the Commonwealth and evaluates the trade-offs between different modes as well as intermodal options (transportation by more than one mode, e.g. truck and rail) in its analysis and recommendations. The Plan also includes a detailed analysis of all rail infrastructure and operations, both freight and passenger. The evaluation will conclude with the publication of a State Freight and Rail Plan and a separate, stand-alone State Rail Plan in the spring of 2010.

The following Public Stakeholder Meetings will be held:

Western Regional Meeting
Tuesday, March 23rd from 2:00 to 4:00 pm
Kittredge Center – Room KC 303
Holyoke Community College
303 Homestead Avenue
Holyoke, MA 01040

Northeast Regional Meeting
Thursday, March 25th from 2:00 to 4:00 pm
Conference Room #1
State Transportation Building
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

Southeast Regional Meeting
Tuesday, March 30th from 2:00 to 4:00 pm
The Corson Building
New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park
33 William Street
New Bedford, MA 02740

Central Regional Meeting
Thursday, April 1st from 1:00 to 3:00 pm
Union Hall (2nd floor)
Union Station Transportation Center
2 Washington Square
Worcester, MA 01604

The meetings will have a presentation on the draft statewide findings and recommendations, but will also focus on each respective region. For more information contact MassDOT Project Manager Ned Codd, 617-973-7473, or visit the website www.mass.gov/massdot/freightandrailplan.

Worcester Group opposes CSX project - From the Worcester Telegram

Group opposes CSX project. In Grafton Hill, truck threat seen By Nick Kotsopoulos TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF nkotsopoulos@telegram.com

WORCESTER — The Grafton Hill Business Association, which represents more than 60 individuals and companies, has come out against CSX Corp.’s plans to expand its freight yard on Franklin Street.

In a statement issued through its president, George Kerxhalli, the group said it has “strong reservations” about the $100 million expansion plan, believing it will have “dire consequences” for lower Grafton Hill.

The association contends that Grafton Street between Posner Square and Billings Square will be especially devastated by the “traffic, noise and pollution that would accompany such a project.”

Mr. Kerxhalli said the officers and directors of the association decided at a special meeting Thursday night to issue a formal declaration of opposition to the CSX project as it is currently constituted.

“Based on the details of the proposal as set forth by CSX and state and city officials so far, the project will have dire consequences for business people, residents and schoolchildren on Grafton Hill,” Mr. Kerxhalli said.

He added that the association intends to elaborate on its objections in public meetings on the project.

CSX wants to double the size of its freight yard on Franklin Street from 23 acres to 51 acres and make Worcester its new rail freight hub for New England. The freight yard is just east of Interstate 290.

The $100 million project is part of a private-public partnership between the state and CSX to reposition its freight operations in Massachusetts so the rail line between Worcester and Boston can be opened to more commuter trains, with a goal of adding 20 more commuter trains by 2012.

There are currently 12 round trips per day. The Worcester-Framingham line carries more than 9,000 passengers into Boston each weekday.

A key part of the CSX plans is the relocation of the access to its freight yard from Franklin Street to Grafton Street, at the site of the vacant Shaw’s Supermarket. That is intended to provide easier access to I-290 and reduce the amount of truck traffic on city streets.

But business owners on that part of Grafton Street are not thrilled with the prospect of all that truck traffic diverted there.

Ron Gestone, owner of Frank’s Flower Shop, 165 Grafton St., said he hopes the city will stand by those residents and property owners who he said will be “totally impacted” by the CSX plan.

His business, which has been at that Grafton Street site for more than 40 years, is just before the I-290 eastbound on-ramp

“My property will no longer be of use for me because I will have more than 500 trucks on a daily basis going by my place of business,” Mr. Gestone said. “With all those trucks, no one will be able to get in or out of my driveway.”

Meanwhile, the City Council has asked City Manager Michael V. O’Brien to discuss with CSX and the state Department of Transportation an alternative to the Grafton Street access to the freight yard. That plan would relocate the current driveway into the site across from Penn Avenue to a point where the new access driveway would be aligned with the traffic signal at the I-290 eastbound ramp, according to District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr.

He said that would allow for the removal of as much truck traffic from the freight yard as possible from Grafton Street. The proposal was broached by Mr. Clancy, Councilor-at-Large Joseph M. Petty and District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri.

Mr. Palmieri has also pointed out that while the Grafton Street entrance/exit to the CSX freight yard would provide direct access to I-290, it would only be in the eastbound direction. He said trucks that need to go west on I-290 would still have to travel through Washington Square.

For that reason, Grafton Hill residents have asked that trucks leaving the CSX freight yard be required to turn right only onto Grafton Street, thus prohibiting them from using Grafton Street to gain access to the westbound entrances to the Massachusetts Turnpike or Route 20.

Providence Journal Editorial: New Bedford's Back to Shipping

Editorial: New Bedford's back to shipping

01:00 AM EST on Saturday, March 13, 2010

Once the wharves of New Bedford were one of the great centers of American commerce. The whaling fleet was based there, providing lamp oil to a burgeoning nation, and sleek clipper ships offered the quickest passage to the West Coast gold mines and China, via Cape Horn. The whalers started to go away with the refining of petroleum for kerosene in the decade before the Civil War, and the clipper-ship era ended at about the same time with the advent of ocean-going steamships.

For years, as the city became one of the leading U.S. fishing ports, no freighters tied up at New Bedford. The harbor's rebirth as a commercial hub dates to 2001, with the complicated redredging of the port's PCB-contaminated shipping channels. They had become so silted that ships were frequently obliged to lighten cargoes at other ports before entering New Bedford Harbor to avoid running aground.

But this year, 28 freighters are scheduled to dock at the Whaling City's piers, many unloading produce from Africa and South America. Because of the fishing industry, New Bedford has big cold-storage capacity.

It's quite a turnaround story. Each delivery provides work for 50 people, say port officials. The Superfund cleanup of PCBs entailed construction of a rail yard that will connect the port to the rail system. The Harbor Development Commission plans a roll-on-roll-off rail shipping connection. Ultimately, New Bedford may become a major hub for short-sea shipping, which promises to help lighten truck congestion on the Interstate Highway System.

New Bedford isn't the only recently re-dredged port in the region, but it seems to be the one most aggressively courting new business. Revitalizing ports as working ports (i.e., shipping), with their well-paid workers, is much better for the economic health of such old ports as New Bedford and Providence than blocking them off with condos and other low-paying enterprises.

.

"OneRail" Coalition Statement of Principles aligned with EMFRC

Railroads are a critical element of our national transportation system.

OneRail (onerail.org) believes that we must increase investment in the nation's railroad infrastructure to ensure our continued mobility, economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as to meet the energy and climate challenges of the 21st century.

A coalition of freight, passenger, transit, environmental and labor groups, OneRail advocates the following policies to strengthen our nation's rail system:

Expanded intercity and commuter passenger train options, in order to substantially reduce vehicle miles traveled, aviation and highway congestion, fuel consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions
A balanced transportation policy that addresses a critical missing link in our nation's surface transportation policy - rail. To ensure that both freight and passenger service is maximized in high-density corridors, public policy should envision separate rights-of-way for freight and passenger operations when necessary
Secure an ongoing, dedicated funding source for intercity passenger rail expansion, including federal-state partnerships and cost-sharing agreements similar to those that built the nation's federal-aid highways and transit systems
Expanded freight rail capacity to meet projected economic demand. While private investment in the nation's freight rail network has been, and will remain the primary means of maintaining and expanding freight rail infrastructure, public policy must facilitate, not frustrate this investment
OneRail coalition members know that additional investment in the nation's rail infrastructure will create American jobs, de-congest chokepoints, put more freight and passengers on fuel-efficient trains, and reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

Worcester to be CSX Freight Hub

Follow the link below to the Worcester Telegram article.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100217/NEWS/100219774/1116

Congressional Vote on Railroad Re-regulation will have impact on Massachusetts Freight Transportation System

By: Frank S. DeMasi

Because national and regional freight traffic is expected to double in Massachusetts over the next 20 years, the annual net benefits (including logistics and social benefits) of freight transported by rail will increase proportionately only if railroads maintain their market share. The actual growth in rail transportation depends on investment in the national rail system and ability of railroads to grow in a competitive transportation market. For this reason it is important for the Massachusetts congressional delegation to support legislation coming before the congress to enhance rail investment to meet this needed future growth.

A bill proposed in Congress (S not yet assigned/HR 1806) would provide an investment tax incentive for railroads and other businesses to put their own dollars to work expanding the system. Infrastructure tax incentives are needed to modernize and expand the rail network, preparing railroads and businesses to meet the nation’s needs, including new tracks, tunnels, bridges, and intermodal facilities. Every $1 invested would generate $3 of economic output. It is estimated that the total $1 billion of economic output from this incentive would create 20,000 jobs. I urge you to support this bill. The balanced regulatory framework established in 1981 that created the Surface Transportation Board has enabled our freight railroads to invest approximately 30% of every revenue dollar back into their own systems. We need the congress to support continued balanced regulation over this vital industry so railroads can continue to invest in their expansion and provide us with freight movement choices that keep our shipping costs low and make the most efficient use possible of our fuel reserves while protecting our environment.

Twelve privately owned railroads operate in Massachusetts including (2) Class I, (2) regional, (8) short lines, AMTRAK and the MBTA. Railroads also bring employment to our state, not only in terms of the residents they employ but also businesses they attract and retain. These railroads operate over 1,175 route miles in Massachusetts, transporting approximately 38 million commuters, 2 million intercity passengers, and 500,000 rail carloads carrying about 20 million tons of freight. Yet trucks dominate the modal balance carrying over 94% by tons of all freight in the Commonwealth. While rail carries a relatively small portion of freight traffic in Massachusetts, rail is an important component of a balanced, competitive transportation network. The benefits of freight rail are: (1) reduced logistics costs in the range of $250 million per year for businesses and municipalities that use rail; and, (2) reduced social costs in the range of $60 million per year for Massachusetts citizens and taxpayers. These social benefits accrue to the public because rail transportation reduces the number of trucks on Massachusetts highways, reflecting avoided costs for pavement maintenance, congestion, air quality, and safety.

Over 40 % of rail ROW in Massachusetts is owned by the state and much of this network is shared with freight, MBTA commuter, and AMTRAK passenger trains. The state’s acquisition of CSX ROW in Eastern Massachusetts and its current extensive ownership of former B&M/Pan AM Railway ROW will not only offer opportunities for improvement and expansion of commuter rail but may also open the door to modernizing and expanding the use of Freight Short lines over state owned ROW. Third party Short Line operators can provide terminal and switching services over these lines far more economically than class I railroads, making local distribution of rail freight a viable alternative to long truck drays from large Class I rail Terminals far outside metropolitan areas of highest consumption. Short Line railroads operating in Massachusetts handled 123,000 railcars, removing an estimated 353,000 trucks off our most congested and stressed roads and bridges, avoiding an estimated $15,000,000 in pavement damage. In 2007 these private rail companies also paid $538,000 in local and state taxes, and employed 293 persons in Massachusetts. In 2004 (most recent year of short line data) Massachusetts short line railroads in total spent $16,883,238 on Capital and Maintenance expenditures to provide reliable service to over 100 in-state customers. Short line railroad marketing efforts in Massachusetts in 2004 resulted in bringing on line 11 new facilities and creating 268 new jobs in the Commonwealth. Short lines operate over 65% (822 miles) of state owned rail mileage, providing cost efficient movement of freight necessary to retain and further develop our industrial base and goods distribution network. Their safety record is one of the best in the nation.

Together, Class I and Short Line benefits to Massachusetts businesses, municipalities, residents and taxpayers amount to approximately $310 million each year. Freight rail also enhances economic development on a local basis, brings competition to the shipping market, provides options and redundancy within the freight system and enhances Massachusetts' overall competitiveness with regard to international trade. Green businesses such as wind and solar, require large, heavy and often unwieldy products to be shipped such as wind turbine blades that can be moved efficiently on rail. A modern Multimodal Transportation System including a viable freight rail element is necessary to attract alternative energy businesses, providing employment opportunities to position our state well for the business model of the future.



About: Frank S. DeMasi

Frank DeMasi is a retired (2002) Defense Contracts Management Agency (DoD) Logistics and Acquisition Specialist. He is a Wellesley Town Meeting Member, formerly an elected Wellesley Planning Board Member (3 yrs) and now represents Wellesley at the MBTA Advisory Board, Boston MPO - Regional Transportation Advisory Council, and Metropolitan Area Planning Council. He strongly believes that in addition to highway and transit we must expand our freight options in order to help our state’s economy rebound from the current recession. DeMasi has been invited by Go21 members to meet with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington on 25 February to bring Massachusetts delegates up to date on railroad issues and transportation legislation.

(Go21 - “Growth Options for the 21st Century” is a national organization chartered to “Unite citizens support of a stronger economy, effective solutions to highway congestion, cleaner environment, improved quality of life, advocating increased rail freight transportation alternatives to reliance on an overcrowded highway system.”)

The statistics presented are found at the FHWA Web Site and a Massachusetts EOT internal report titled Massachusetts Rail Trends and Opportunities, July 2007.

An Open Letter to Warren Buffett

By: Michael Sussman, President & Founder, OnTrackAmerica, Inc.

Mr. Buffet, congratulations on your purchase of the BNSF Railway. It is a significant and welcome investment in North America’s rail transportation system. It also provides a timely opening to address a systemic, long-standing problem—the incongruence between our investment of capital, energy, and land for freight and passenger transportation and the inherent value of railroads to any well-functioning modern society.

Only by understanding this shortcoming and seizing the opportunity to transform its causes can we bring North America out of its economic malaise and environmental jeopardy. If we act wisely, your acquisition will become a watershed moment.

But first we must evolve beyond moving money simply to where the investor receives the highest return on investment, and adopt a new principle—moving capital into an industry, system, or region in a way that maximizes the benefit of that capital to that system. Out of that shared benefit, the investor receives their return.

Just a few more words, but they make all the difference in the depth of thinking, the sustainability of the system, and the long-term profitability of serving that market.

Even while new capital enters the rail industry, our network of freight lines is shrinking. Much like with the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, rational justifications abound for this depletion of resources. Every year, the U.S. abandons enough rail lines to stretch from Boston, MA, to Richmond, VA. Since 1990, 20% of our system has vanished.

Branch line segments are deemed “uneconomic” after years of downward pressure from too narrow an economic lens and an incomplete policy perspective. The wider view of the larger system and the longer term is missing.

Your own reflections about the BNSF purchase have been well publicized. Your commitment to the country, to the environment, and to the shareholders of BNSF and Berkshire Hathaway has come shining through. One remark, however, while completely understandable for its business logic, speaks to what is driving investment capital toward a diminished contribution to society. The New York Times quoted you as saying, “From my standpoint, it’s a lot easier to make one $32 billion investment than ten $3 billion investments.”

Yes, it is easier to move capital in larger quantities, but the world’s small and midsized businesses and communities need access to capital (and access to railroads) if we are going to sustain the systems that warrant the larger transactions. Unfortunately, in the everyday world of business and finance, it is still said that “it takes as much effort to do a small deal as it does to do a large deal, so why do the small ones?” While there are many facets to the decrease in urban and rural freight and passenger rail systems over the last century, this maxim is one of the least examined. The resulting gap in capital and attention is a primary contributor to our continuing abandonment of rail lines, leaving more and more cities, towns, and rural populations with a major challenge to revitalization, congestion relief, and job creation.

Much of the energy within the logistics industry and major railroads is directed toward the consolidation of freight between major terminals along high-volume corridors. While this contributes to transportation efficiency, it nonetheless fosters a devastating increase in regional truck traffic where we can least afford it—on the local roads and highways of small towns and large metropolitan regions across the continent that are increasingly suffering from congestion and air pollution.

Pennsylvania, my state, has become a hotbed of warehousing and distribution facilities built, alarmingly, not only “truck out” to cover the Baltimore-to-Boston market, but also “truck in.” Consequently, more and more goods carried long-haul by the railroads are unloaded in large intermodal terminals in small towns, instead of being delivered directly via branch line railroads.

Just last week, in your home state of Nebraska, two articles in The Chadron Record showcased yet another version of this problem. One described a bulk loading facility for grain being built to consolidate shipments from small-town elevators around the region. Volume pricing is designed to redirect the grain movements from existing rail lines onto trucks traveling on local roads. The second article relates county residents’ complaints about deplorable road and bridge conditions causing serious vehicle breakdowns, with the county out of funding for gravel and road repair. $14.5 million for the new grain facility is being provided by federal stimulus funding, while the county’s budget struggles deepen. This can’t be what the American public expects from its tax dollars.

We are facing a systemwide drive toward consolidation fueled by the largest logistics and transportation providers—as well as by the financial community—which all thrive on bigger transactions. As a result, many more branch lines are about to be pushed into abandonment, even while state and local governments spend millions in futile attempts to preserve them. This is not a healthy prescription for America’s long-term economic vitality.

As C.K. Prahalad documents in Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, those companies around the world that serve the large market of smaller individual customers contribute to thriving communities and enjoy significant profits. Intermodal and unit train movements of high-volume freight can serve the continent well if parallel attention is dedicated to local, carload, short-haul, and direct rail service to small and large shippers alike.

Mr. Buffet, we invite you to study our work at OnTrackAmerica and to collaborate with us toward building a more profitable rail system that supports the best interests of the continent by serving businesses of all sizes and as many communities as possible.

About Michael Sussman and OnTrackAmerica

OnTrackAmerica, a 501c3 nonprofit transportation consultancy, is founded on fifteen years of research and dialogue with stakeholders throughout industry, government, and academia. We have promoted a bold, yet pragmatic vision for advancing transportation efficiency through thousands of individual conversations and numerous multi-stakeholder summits. During this time, founder Michael Sussman through his company Strategic Rail Finance has coordinated financing in 23 states, particularly for branch railroads that previously suffered from underinvestment. Mr. Sussman's commitment to maximizing the transportation industry's contribution to economic vitality and livable communities has led to the creation of OnTrackAmerica. Visit www.ontrackamerica.org for more information.

Freight by Rail Provides Significant Environmental Benefits

By Walter Bonin

The movement of goods by truck in Massachusetts has risen to 81% of the total. This growth has come at the expense of rail freight which has declined to 7% of the total. This has occurred despite rails significant environmental and other advantages. The following compares the environmental impact of the use of trucks vs. rail for the same ton-miles delivered:

Trucks vs. Rail

Fuel use - 4.3 X
Carbon monoxide emissions - 5.2 X
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)- 5.1 X
Volatile organic compounds - 12.5 X
Particulate matter - 8.9 X

In addition rail reduces highway congestion (further reducing air pollution), damage to roads and especially bridges, reduces costs to consumers and is safer to move hazardous materials. This state of affairs has come about based on the belief that freight railroads are a private matter and not part of public policy. This is clearly wrong! The environmental and other benefits can be realized only if government takes an active role and adopts progressive public policies and works with railroad companies in "partnership". Thus far the relations between the state and railroad companies has been less than harmonious. The Coalition is urging active support rail freight as part of the state's transportation and environmental plans. We seek to have all parties work together to realize these opportunities.

The Times Call for a New Membership Category in Freight Rail Trade Group

From Massachusetts Railroad Association

In a major step aimed at maximizing communication and opportunities across the freight rail network, the Massachusetts Railroad Association (MRA) has decided to create a new membership category within the association. As of January 1, 2010, individuals, companies and organizations may join the MRA as associate members for an annual fee of $500. Those entering the association in this category will be able to attend MRA meetings, build stronger relationships through direct regular contact with MRA members, share new information about themselves and their products and services, and promote their varied business interests. With the continuing renaissance of the nation’s freight rail sector, with new ideas and technologies emerging daily in the industry, and with non-rail enterprises increasingly turning to freight rail for business solutions, this was the “perfect time” to expand the ranks of the MRA, said Rian Nemeroff, vice president of the Housatonic Railroad Co. and outgoing MRA chairperson. “The category of associate member is a recognition of the fact that freight railroads touch a surprisingly large number of other industries and businesses in Massachusetts,” said Nemeroff, “and that these other enterprises are our natural allies in the quest to strengthen freight rail and boost the economy of the Commonwealth.” Associate memberships are part of “a long-term alliance building process that will benefit all participants,” Nemeroff added. Since its founding in 1979, the MRA has provided a forum for freight railroads to share information and to promote knowledge and understanding of the role of railroads in the safe, efficient and economic transportation of goods in, through, and out of the state. During their most recent meeting, MRA members voted unanimously to amend their bylaws to accept associate members, who are broadly defined as people or organizations that have a professional interest in freight railroads operating in Massachusetts. For information on how to become an associate member, please contact Rian Nemeroff at r.nemeroff@hrrc.com or 215-914-0392.

The Massachusetts Railroad Association is a trade association representing the interests of: Bay Colony Railroad Corporation, CSX Transportation, East Brookfield & Spencer Railroad, Fore River Transportation, Grafton & Upton Railroad, Housatonic Railroad Company, Massachusetts Central Railroad Corporation, Massachusetts Coastal Railroad, New England Central Railroad, Pan Am Railways, Pioneer Valley Railroad, and the Providence and Worcester Railroad Company.

MBTA Extends Contract of Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad

January 12th, 2010 - As reported by Rail Resources

Veolia Transportation Inc. (Veolia) announced on Jan. 8 that the board of directors of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) had unanimously approved a two-year renewal of its Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company’s (MBCR) Boston commuter rail contract.

MBCR is a consortium comprising Veolia Transportation, Alternate Concepts Inc. and Bombardier Transit Corporation that operates the commuter rail network on behalf of the MBTA. Veolia Transportation is the majority member of MBCR, which is responsible for operations and workforce management, maintenance of equipment and infrastructure, dispatch and customer service.

MBCR assumed operations of the commuter railroad in July 2003 under a five-year contract that was extended three years in July 2008 to June 2011, and now extended again to June 2013, under the contract’s option provisions.

“We are extremely proud of the work we have done as the MBTA’s partner, and we are honored to have earned the Board’s confidence in our performance,” said Rich Davey, general manager, MBCR. “At Wednesday’s board meeting the MBTA staff noted that together we have achieved significant improvements in on-time performance, availability of air-conditioning, customer service and rider satisfaction.”

MBCR employs 1,800 people and operates 480 trains each day along a 650-mile system.

Commuter rail expansion threatened by collapse of South Station land deal

As reported by the Boston Globe -- January 6, 2010 02:41 PM By Noah Bierman and Casey Ross, Globe Staff

A complex deal to redevelop the US Postal Service's massive facility in Boston and expand commuter rail service at neighboring South Station has fallen apart.

Massachusetts Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Mullan announced today that the deal "will not move forward," which could significantly delay the MBTA's efforts to expand rail service to southeastern and central Massachusetts.

The Postal Service had planned to relocate to South Boston and hand over the mail-sorting facility to a private developer that was planning to build a large mixed-used complex on the 16-acre site. That redevelopment would have also cleared the way for the MBTA to acquire more land in the area to add tracks for expanded commuter rail service.

Mullan offered few details. Neither the Postal Service nor its designated developer, Jones Lang LaSalle, would comment. Other agencies involved were not immediately available for comment.

The move involved complex negotiations with the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Department of Defense, both of which owned pieces of the land on Summer Street where the Postal Service was planning to relocate.

When the Postal Service selected Jones Lang LaSalle as developer in April 2008, a spokesman said the property was "key" to the redevelopment of the Fort Point Channel waterfront district, one of the city of Boston's top targets for growth.

The collapsed deal now puts the MBTA's planned expansion of commuter rail service to the Framingham-Worcester and New Bedford--Fall River areas at risk. Mullen said South Station's current train platforms are too crowded, and the agency needs more tracks to increase service to these areas.