New Rail Study Raises New Fears

Residents of Southern Rhode Island and Southeastern Connecticut believed that they had prevailed in 2017, after working together to defeat an Amtrak proposal that would have brought tracks through the centers of several historic communities, farms and open space. But the issue of increasing passenger rail speed and capacity remains unresolved, and Amtrak will soon embark on a new study to determine the needs of the region. Despite promises of community engagement, residents and officials still worry that, like the mythical Phoenix, the Kenyon-Old Saybrook bypass may rise again.

Richmond was one of the towns that opposed the bypass route. At the Jan. 17, 2017 Town Council meeting, councilors endorsed neighboring Charlestown’s resolution opposing the plan.

The proposed route of the bypass would have had significant impacts on the Pawcatuck River, now designated by the National Park Service as “Wild and Scenic.” The new tracks would have crossed the Biscuit City fishing area, eliminating both the parking space and river access. Several additional neighborhoods, such as Lewiston Avenue, would have been affected. A more detailed description of the impacts in Richmond can be found here.

The bypass proposal, opposed by then-Gov. Gina Raimondo, was shelved, but now, a new study has rekindled fears that there will be a renewed effort to route high-speed trains through southern RI.

What is Amtrak Planning?

The Federal Railroad Administration has received up to $4 million in federal funding to conduct the “New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study,” or CPS, to find ways to improve rail service and increase rail capacity between New Haven and Providence. A copy of the introduction to the study, obtained by BRVCA, differentiates the new CPS from the previous, ill-fated study that included the Kenyon – Old Saybrook bypass. This time, the stated goal of the new study will be to minimize “effects on both the natural and human built environments.”

Rhode Island Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti, who represented Rhode Island during the 2017 study, was opposed to the Kenyon – Old Saybrook bypass proposal. Asked to comment on the new study, RIDOT spokesman Charles St. Martin said requests should be directed to Amtrak, so BRVCA contacted the rail company.

Amtrak’s Senior Public Relations Manager, Jason Abrams, said the Federal Railroad Administration has determined that rail and automobile traffic between the northeastern cities is approaching, or has already returned to pre-COVID levels, and is expected to continue to grow.

“Through the NEC (Northeast Corridor) FUTURE planning process, which was completed in July 2017 with the publication of a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has defined a long-term vision for the future role of passenger rail service on the Northeast Corridor (NEC).,” Abrams explained in an emailed response. “This vision supports the projected population and employment growth in the region by upgrading aging infrastructure and expanding capacity along the NEC. To achieve this vision, the FRA has defined an incremental approach which includes the New Haven to Providence CPS as a key component. The CPS will consider both improvements to the existing intercity passenger rail alignment through the study and new alignment segments.”

The introduction to the CPS study states that the new initiative will provide an opportunity to “conduct a robust and inclusive public outreach effort to understand the needs of local communities.”

Abrams confirmed that community engagement in the process would be a priority this time.

“Based on the lessons learned from the prior planning work, the New Haven to Providence CPS will employ an inclusive, innovative approach to outreach and community engagement in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, residents, and businesses,” he said. “The outcome will be a strategy to address the long-term mobility and economic development of the study area while being mindful of critical historical, resiliency, and community development issues. Upon conclusion, a Final Report will be prepared with the results of public outreach and community engagement; the alternatives analysis of potential rail alignment, infrastructure, and operational options between New Haven and Providence; and next steps.”

Abrams also noted that any needed improvements identified during the course of the study would be subjected to further public consultation.

“The implementation of infrastructure improvements identified through this process will be subject to additional planning, design, and community engagement,” he said. “Our intent will be to develop any proposed improvements in close coordination with local communities and stakeholders, to develop solutions that are acceptable to those groups and that attempt to address a wide range of issues. We are committed to making the outreach and planning processes inclusive and continuous to avoid surprising local communities with ideas and concepts that they have not been involved in creating.”

The new study also states that Amtrak does not intend to “return to previously proposed alignments,” which means the controversial 2017 rail proposal is probably dead. Asked whether Amtrak might, in the future, consider reviving the bypass, Abrams said,

“At this point, we have not formally initiated the study and cannot comment on which specific ideas, concepts, and solutions will be included or not included. However, it is important to note that we are aware of the concerns expressed about some of the NEC FUTURE proposals and are determined to learn from the project’s history.”

Is the Kenyon-Old Saybrook Bypass Really Dead? What Might Replace it?

In Charlestown, where officials remain wary of Amtrak’s plans, Town Council President Deborah Carney will introduce a resolution at the Feb. 26 Town Council meeting opposing any consideration of a possible revival of the bypass. Carney wrote the resolution with Charlestown dairy farm owner and bypass opponent, Kim Coulter. The old bypass, including a tunnel, would have cut through her farm.

“I pulled the resolution from 2017 and Kim Coulter and I are reviewing it for current relevancy, to see if there’s anything we need to change, or amend in that resolution, and I will put that draft copy, along with the backup information, for the February 26 Town Council, just so we’re officially on the record in stating our opposition to our United States Senators and Representatives to any resurgence of the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass,” she said.

Carney noted that Charlestown officials were making an effort to go on record now with their opposition.

“We are remaining very diligent, and trying to stay on top of everything as best we can,” she said. “That’s why we are going officially on the record with our senators and representatives, so if anything comes up, they know this is where we still stand in the process.”

The resolution, which at the time of this publication, was still to be approved by council members, reads in part:

“WHEREAS the scope of this project and the impact of the route on the Town of Charlestown would have: Destroyed dozens of private homes; decimated the historic mill villages of Burdickville, Columbia Heights and Kenyon; crossed land owned by the Narragansett, a federally recognized Indian Tribe; fragmented historic and active farmland; fragmented the Francis Carter Preserve, a major land holding of The Nature Conservancy along the Pawcatuck River; and passed through and/or destroyed numerous publicly and privately owned open space otherwise protected in perpetuity;”

“WHEREAS the Capacity Planning Study is an alternative analysis to identify and evaluate; new potential rail alignment alternatives; improvements to existing rail lines; focused on the project planning phase; an opportunity to conduct a robust and inclusive public outreach effort and to understand the needs of local communities; and WHEREAS the Capacity Planning Study is not a direct continuation of NEC FUTURE. It is not a return to previously proposed alignments; and WHEREAS the Town of Charlestown seeks to make it known to all that the Town is opposed to any revival of the Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass.”

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Charlestown hereby opposes a revival of the Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass; and a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Resolution-FRA-draft (10158 : Resolution Opposing FRA Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass) 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to send a copy of this resolution to U.S. Senator Jack Reed, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressman Seth Magaziner, Governor Dan McKee, and Narragansett Indian Tribe Chief Sachem Anthony Dean Stanton.”

Lingering Issues

The original Kenyon-Old Saybrook bypass surprised many residents with the lack of awareness of its significant impacts on the Connecticut towns of Old Lyme, Mystic and Stonington and in Rhode Island, Charlestown, Richmond and Westerly. The bypass was not endorsed in the final Record of Decision, issued in July, 2017, but it is important to keep in mind that solutions for the New Haven to Providence route remain unresolved, and the new CPS, which is expected to begin this spring, will be completed in 18 to 24 months.

Even before the study begins, Amtrak has reiterated its commitment to “continued stakeholder outreach,” and representatives of the communities that might be affected are waiting to be invited to the table.

Charlestown Planning Commission Chair Ruth Platner, who found out about the old bypass proposal while watching the news on television, said that while the bypass had been removed from the final decision, Amtrak was still required to increase its capacity.

“They have to increase capacity, they have to increase speed,” she said. “So, that means that the solution that was in there before, the bypass, was taken out, but nothing was put in its place and the solution that was offered, the problem that it was solving, is still there.”

Platner described two possible alternate routes. One route mostly follows Interstate 95, like the old bypass. The second route goes inland.

“One of the possibilities was the inland route that went from New Haven to Hartford and then to Providence,” she said. “That was also incredibly destructive, in that it would go through western Rhode Island, and the western border of Rhode Island is undeveloped and it’s incredibly important for a wildlife corridor, a climate corridor for wildlife, and it’s currently has a lot of preserved land, so it’s very similar to Charlestown.”

Neither Amtrak nor the Connecticut Department of Transportation appears to favor the inland route, however, Platner said she didn’t know what a rejection of the inland route might mean.

“There’s no information being passed back and forth between the people who are doing the planning and the communities, and that’s what missing,” she said.

Amtrak’s insufficient public outreach in 2016 and 2017 has left residents and officials in eastern Connecticut and southern Rhode Island skittish about what might come next. Although the Capacity Planning Study will not even launch until the spring, Platner said Amtrak should be communicating with stakeholders now.

“I don’t believe that they’re doing anything wrong,” she said. “I have no knowledge that anything has happened, but because they had such a failed public process before, and because what they proposed was so devastating to the environment, historic resources, to people’s homes, they ought to want to start with a very public engagement with a really open process, because people will assume, and I assume, that they don’t have any other ideas, because I’ve only heard of two, and one has been taken off the table. So if they have another idea, no one knows what it is, and again, the people in the path of that other idea ought to know, too.”

Update from CCA editors: At the February Charlestown Town Council meeting, Councilor Susan Cooper made some amendments to the above proposed resolution to emphasize the national importance of some of the resources that would be damaged or destroyed by the train route proposed in 2017. That part of the resolution now reads:

“WHEREAS the scope of this project and the impact of the route on the Town of Charlestown would have: Destroyed dozens of private homes; decimated the historic mill villages of Burdickville, Columbia Heights and Kenyon that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; crossed land owned by the Narragansett, a federally recognized Indian Tribe; fragmented historic and active farmland; fragmented the Francis Carter Preserve, a major land holding of The Nature Conservancy; crossed the National Wild and Scenic Pawcatuck River; passed through and/or destroyed numerous publicly and privately owned open space otherwise protected in perpetuity; crossed through Burlingame and Great Swamp State Wildlife Management Areas; and was proposed entirely within or directly adjacent to the acquisition area of the Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge.“

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act have to be addressed by Federal transportation projects.

Section 4(f) applies to significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and to significant publicly or privately owned historic properties. Section 6(f) applies to properties that received financial assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program.

Amtrak and FRA are required to identify Section 4(f) resources, determine impacts to those resources, identify measures to minimize harm, analyze the alternative with the least overall harm, and describe the coordination efforts made to address Section 4(f) issues and concerns. Also they are required to coordinate under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, The Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and others.

Going forward, wherever Section 4(f) resources or Section 6(f) resources fall in the proposed train path, it will be critical that these resources be called out and their federal designations given. When describing impacts such as those listed in the resolution, it will also be important to draw attention to any resources that have federal designations.