From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Andreski, Richard W.
Redeker, James P
Sucato, Pamela P; Brault, Angela R
RE: Dave Carol
Thursday, February 18, 2016 9:59:40 AM

Jim, thanks for the update. It is remarkable they didn’t do sufficient analysis on the Hartford Line. It
is the one project that is real and they could have leveraged to show progress. Also remarkable that
they are selecting an alternative, but leaving the coordination to the 8 states.
I will work with Angela to find some time early next week for us to catch-up and prep for next
Friday. Rich
From: Redeker, James P
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 9:35 AM
To: Andreski, Richard W.
Cc: Sucato, Pamela P
Subject: Dave Carol

So, after spending a few hours with the team, Dave Carol tells me the NEC Future team will
be selecting Alt. 2 as the preferred alternative. They are still discussing the Hartford line, but
are not yet sure they will be able to include it, since they did not "study it" like they
"studied" the rest of the alignments and alternatives. I reminded him that FRA funded the
Hartford line, expects us to complete double-tracking, and they also funded the study for
the inland route from Springfield to Boston. Also, they will be leaving the Kenyon bypass for
the spine to Boston, because they are completely focused on delivering 4 track capacity to
Boston.
T,hey have no strategy for any work to be taken beyond the ROD into a Tier 2 EIS. They did
not ask for, nor are they seeking funding to continue the work. They apparently see the next
steps for EIS and/or project work to be up the states and operators.
I had a rather strong reaction to this position, which I think Dave got, but unless they do a
huge retooling and re-messaging, I suggested they would be perceived as completely
wasting $40M with no useful product for anyone.
Looks like we have a bunch of work to do next Friday.

 From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Andreski, Richard W.
Redeker, James P; Barry, Anna M
Jackson, Carl L
NEC FUTURE, 2/26/16
Friday, February 26, 2016 2:58:08 PM

Jim & Anna,
Carl and I attended the NEC FUTURE meeting today. I gave opening remarks urging
discussion on how the Tier 1 EIS/ROD might 1) provide maximum flexibility for
future state and Amtrak projects, 2) incorporate ongoing major projects such as
Hartford Line, which includes a substantial federal interest and 3) lead to a set of
definitive next steps (eg, Tier 2). I restated it was premature to select a particular
alternative.
Sarah Feinberg did not participate and I don't believe Paul Nissenaum was able to
join either. There seemed to be some agreement with Astrid, Rich Brancato, Bill
Wheeler and others pressing why a preferred alternative was even necessary.
It appears CT stakeholder comments outnumbered other state comments by about
five fold. I guess our outreach helped.
Rebecca explained the various adjustments they were making in response to public
comments. For example, the Old Lyme Kenyon Bypass concept is being modified.
Hartford Line will be included as an additional feeder spine to the NEC with up to 4
intercity trains per hour originating or ending in Springfield.
We asked whether the full rapid transit-style service on the NHL was considered. The
answer is yes.
Rebecca stated they recognize more work is needed on the alternative concepts and
development of a near term strategy. Still I believe they are pressing forward on
Alternative 2 with the mods described above.
I can give you more when we talk.
Rich
860-202-6223