Amtrak Bypass Still Something to Worry About? Depends Whom You Ask
By CYNTHIA DRUMMOND/ecoRI News contributor
The study is part of the Northeast Corridor 2035 Plan, or “C35,” a
15-year plan to guide investment in rail service in the Northeast.
The C35 describes the plan, which has an estimated cost of $130
billion, as the first phase of the long-term vision for the corridor described
in the Federal Railroad Administration’s 2017 NEC Future plan, which includes “making
significant improvements to NEC rail service for both existing and new riders,
on both commuter rail systems and Amtrak.”
In 2016, Charlestown officials learned, by chance, that the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had released its Tier 1 environmental
impact statement (EIS) on a plan to straighten train tracks in the Northeast to
accommodate high-speed rail service. The plan wasn’t met with
broad enthusiasm.
The FRA had sent letters to affected towns and the Narragansett
Indian Tribe in 2015, soliciting comments on the draft EIS, but according to a
blog post on the plan by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance
political action committee, there was no specific mention of new tracks going
through Charlestown or other neighboring towns.
"Most of these governments have no recollection of receiving
communication from the FRA,” the post read. “The letter does not say
that new rails and a new rail route are proposed in your
community. When no comments came from one of the most impacted towns, this
should have suggested to the FRA that the local community and local
stakeholders were not aware and engaged in the review process.”
The unpleasant surprise included in the plan was the Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass,
which would have moved rail traffic directly through Old Saybrook, Conn.,
Westerly and Charlestown, bisecting neighborhoods, nature preserves and
historic farms. The towns and Narragansett Indian Tribal officials fought the
plan, and the Record of Decision, released in 2017, omitted the bypass.
But the omission didn’t mean the bypass had simply gone away, and
the Charlestown Citizens Alliance warned that the decision left the door open
to a study which could resurrect the bypass.
The alliance’s blog post published after the decision reads: “The
July 12, 2017 ROD calls for a study that could possibly bring back the Bypass.
We will remain vigilant throughout this study process to work to stop the
Bypass from being resurrected.”
In an effort to learn more about the FRA’s intentions, Town
Council President Deborah Carney spoke last August with Amtrak’s chief
executive officer, William J. Flynn, who said the most likely route for a New
Haven to Providence high-speed rail track would be along the Interstate 95
corridor.
Carney, who said she had been put in contact with Flynn by a
mutual acquaintance in Charlestown, acknowledged that while there is no
guarantee that plans for the original bypass that would have bisected the town
would not be revived, she felt reassured that the I-95 route would be
preferred.
“They’re doing the feasibility study and analysis, so there’s no
concrete plan at all, but [Flynn] said if they were to go forward with
something, it would most likely either to parallel Route 95, like the northern
part of the state, or it would involve improving the existing line that goes
along the southern coast - where it is now.”
Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT) director Peter
Alviti represents the state on the 18-member FRA Northeast Corridor Commission (NECC), which is
studying rail demand and capacity in the Northeast New Haven to Providence rail
corridor.
Alviti, and DOT intermodal programs chief Stephen Devine, met in
November with Charlestown officials, Rep. Blake Filippi, R-New Shoreham, and
Sen. Elaine Morgan, R-Hopkinton.
Alviti told the group the NECC would require a study of future
ridership demand on the New Haven to Providence route before any decision was
made. (DOT did not support the originally proposed Old Saybrook to Kenyon
bypass.)
DOT spokesperson Charles St. Martin said in a recent emailed
statement that his agency was counting on more public consultation this time
around.
“Yes, RIDOT met recently with Charlestown officials regarding this
proposal,” he said. “We told them we are aware that Amtrak is retaining a
consultant to do an initial market study only to first determine the demand for
higher speed services. This effort will be starting soon and will include a
robust public participation component.”
St. Martin also noted, “Rhode Island’s position remains the same
as in 2017, when the state indicated opposition of the bypass route in
Charlestown.”
What still vexes some Charlestown officials, however, is the
continued lack of any FRA response to the town’s inquiries.
In August 2021, at the request of the Town Council, town
administrator Mark Stankiewicz wrote a letter to FRA interim administrator Amit
Bose, asking for more information regarding the New Haven to Providence study.
After receiving no response to the first letter, Stankiewicz sent
a second letter on Dec. 10, which read, in part, “Given the limited available
information and the absence of any communication from the FRA, we are in a
quandary as to how to ensure Charlestown receives timely information and is
able to relay our input and concerns about the New Haven to Providence Capacity
Planning Study.”
Charlestown Planning Commission chair Ruth Platner, who was not
mollified by Flynn’s statements, said she had not expected the FRA to respond.
 |
| This should be the motto on the CCA's coat of arms |
Platner said she believed that pandemic-related changes which have
made it possible for many Americans to move out of large cities and work from home
will impact the study.
“I think what’s happened now, because of the pandemic, there’s
kind of a wait and see, to see what this means for growth. Are the cities not
going to grow?” she said.
Another factor to consider, Platner said, is the proximity of the
I-95 corridor to the coast, and therefore, its vulnerability to rising sea
levels.
“It’s a beautiful ride, and it’s right along the coast, and the
water is right there. The tracks are going to be under water, so they have to
do something, and the problem has to be solved, and it’s going to be solved
with some sort of realignment away from the coast,” she said.
Carney said her concerns had been largely put to rest after her
conversation with Flynn and the meeting with Alviti.
“In our conversations with Peter Alviti, and also William Flynn,
it doesn’t seem as though that Old Saybrook to Kenyon is going to be revived,
but I understand where people are coming from,” she said. “You know, if it’s
their property that’s impacted, obviously they’re concerned about it, but I
will say that Director Alviti kind of put our minds at ease, you know, in
saying ‘This is not in the 10-year plan.’”
Platner, however, warned the affected towns to remain vigilant.
“The town of Charlestown needs to be involved, so that we can protect
the people and the environment here,” she said. “What we don’t want is to have
a plan be created that we don’t know about.”
The FRA did not respond to several requests for comment.
EDITOR'S NOTE: What makes the Charlestown Choo-Choo a hoax is the total lack of evidence presented by the CCA.
If Ruth and the CCA HAD such evidence, they would have produced it already, especially since both the CEO of AMTRAK and Rhode Island's official representive on the Northeast Corridor Commission say there is no plan revive the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass.
Also, if there was evidence, I would expect a fine local journalist like Cynthia Drummond would have found it and presented it in this article.
I filled an open records request with Charlestown to examine their files on Amtrak and, instead of getting to look at what they've got, I was given a bill for almost $200 to look over what they were willing to show me. I refuse to pay an extortionate price to look at records of the type the town had been providing Progressive Charlestown for free.
So there's the Ruth Platner's Choo-choo hoax and, thanks to Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz, there is the cover up.
As Carl Sagan put it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"so if there's any truth to the CCA's wild claims, they need to produce the documents and let me look at the Town Hall files.
- Will Collette
