BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT—AUGUST 2014 BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT—AUGUST 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Staff, Elected Officials, and Residents of the Berkshire Line Communities Karen Christensen and the Bring Back the Trains Campaign Bill Palmer, MassDOT Dustin Rhue, MassDOT Gary Sheppard, Berkshire Regional Transit Authority Bob Malnati, Berkshire Regional Transit Authority John R. Hanlon Jr., Housatonic Railroad Company Colin Pease, Housatonic Railroad Company Deborah Menette,Housatonic Railroad Company Berkshire Regional Planning Commission Nathaniel Karns, AICP, Executive Director Thomas Matuszko, AICP, Assistant Director Clete Kus, AICP, Transportation Manager Mark Maloy, GIS, Data and IT Manager Brian Domina, Senior Planner Patricia Mullins, Senior Planner Gwen Miller, Planner Jaclyn Pacejo, Planner BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS Page 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This page intentionally left blank. BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary rail service. In some instances, the nearly significant challenge in locating a passen- Map 1: Locus Map The Housatonic Railroad Company (HRRC) century old historic passenger rail stations ger rail station in a downtown area was has proposed re-establishing passenger rail may meet these needs and in other instances, finding sites with sufficient room for park- service between Danbury, Connecticut and new locations may better serve them. ing. Thus, for the recommended down- Pittsfield, Massachusetts on the former town passenger rail stations a smaller To address this issue, the Berkshire Regional Berkshire Line. The passenger rail service amount of parking, compared to a regional Planning Commission (BRPC) partnered between these two locations last operated passenger rail station, will likely be availa- with HRRC to conduct this passenger rail in 1971 shortly after the Penn Central ble. The limited amount of parking at the station location and design analysis with the Transportation Company filed for bank- downtown locations should not be prob- primary objective of identifying the most fea- ruptcy. The HRRC proposal would once lematic as an overwhelming majority of sible and advantageous locations for passen- again make it possible for a passenger passengers using the service are projected ger rail stations along the Berkshire Line. boarding the passenger train at Grand Cen- to be traveling north to Berkshire County Other objectives of this study include devel- tral Station in New York City to reach Pitts- and will not have a need for parking. In oping recommendations for passenger rail field, Massachusetts by train in approxi- addition, the passenger rail stations pro- station design, facilities and amenities; eval- mately four (4) hours and vice versa. For posed for the City of Pittsfield and the uating and refining the preliminary railroad the HRRC proposal to become reality, a sig- Town of Sheffield (if one is constructed) operations analysis; and assessing the poten- nificant capital investment in Massachu- are recommended to function as larger tial economic, environmental, land use and setts, Connecticut and New York will need regional stations and will provide more community benefits and impacts of the pro- to be made to upgrade the rail infrastruc- parking for southbound passengers. Only posed passenger rail service and the recom- ture along the Berkshire Line. Massachu- when no feasible location can be found in a mended passenger rail station locations. setts has made an initial commitment to the downtown areas does BRPC support the Funding for this study was provided project by entering into an agreement to construction of a passenger rail station out- through a Transportation, Community and acquire the Berkshire Line from HRRC and side of the mixed use downtown areas un- Systems Preservation Grant awarded to the committing $35 million dollars to upgrade less operational needs dictate otherwise. BRPC by the U.S. Department of Transporta- the rail infrastructure. Connecticut has not Stations located outside of downtown are- tion. yet made a commitment, but discussions as would likely diminish the economic are underway between the state and HRRC. benefit to the communities, and severely The development of the passenger rail sta- diminish the potential for the proposed tion location recommendations follow the The majority of the existing rail infrastruc- passenger rail service to provide intra- Sustainable Development Principles of the ture is nearly a century old in both Con- county transportation for residents and Commonwealth of Massachusetts and smart necticut and Massachusetts. The worn out visitors. growth principles and principles from Sus- jointed rails and ties are not suitable for the tainable Berkshires (the regional plan for safe operation of a passenger rail service Berkshire County). In accordance with these and must be replaced. Another essential principles, a conscious effort was made to component of the rail infrastructure are the identify passenger rail station locations in passenger rail stations. The ideal passenger mixed use downtown areas that have exist- rail station will meet the needs of the com- ing pedestrian connectivity and existing munity, the needs of the region and the op- commercial establishments that would bene- erational needs of the proposed passenger fit from a passenger rail station. The most BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS Page 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of Key Findings Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center Sheffield may be an ideal location for a passen- 11. The attendees at the public meetings and re- 1. The rail infrastructure along the Berkshire ger rail station to serve Sheffield and north- spondents to the online survey identified prior- Line needs total replacement. All of the near- western Connecticut if a passenger rail station ities for the types of amenities and services ly century old existing jointed rail and ties need is not located in North Canaan, Connecticut. A offered at a Berkshire passenger rail station. to be replaced with new ties and welded rail. passenger rail station in both locations would Strong pedestrian connectivity around a pas- The at-grade public crossings require safety not allow the passenger rail service to operate senger rail station was indicated as a top priori- upgrades and passenger rail stations need to be efficiently and is not recommended. HRRC ty. The convenience of ticket purchasing and retrofitted or built new. The estimated total cost owns a ten (10) acre site (State Line) in this access to and from the passenger rail station of the rail infrastructure improvements in both area that is recommended for use as a passen- were also identified as top priorities by Connecticut and Massachusetts exceeds $200 ger rail station. attendees/respondents. million dollars. 8. A passenger rail station is not recommended 12. Further refinement of the 2010 Market Street 2. With input from HRRC, the ideal minimum for the Town of Lenox because it is located Research (MSR) marketing study suggests that spacing between stations was determined to within ten (10) miles of the City of Pittsfield over a five (5) year period annual ridership 5. A new passenger rail station to be constructed be ten (10) miles apart for the passenger rail and the rail corridor passes through the less between Berkshire County and points south on the west side of the downtown area on service to operate efficiently. densely developed area of the town. Lenox will increase to 1,086,874 one-way fares per Railroad Street is the recommended location residents will have access to the passenger rail year. 3. Initial passenger rail stations are recommend- for a passenger rail station in the Town of Lee. service at the Pittsfield station or the Lee sta- ed for the City of Pittsfield, the Town of Lee A new passenger rail station in this location is tion. 13. The MSR marketing study suggests that peak and the Town of Great Barrington. Passenger expected to serve the needs of the local commu- demand for the passenger rail service will be rail stations located in these locations will best nity, support existing commercial establish- 9. A passenger rail station is not recommended on weekends in the summer months as a large serve the needs of the region and the operation- ments in the downtown area, further economic for the Town of Stockbridge because it is lo- majority of the passengers traveling to Berk- al needs of the proposed passenger rail service. development, and facilitate intra-county trans- cated within ten (10) miles of Great Barring- shire County will be visitors as opposed to portation. Two possible scenarios are provided ton and the potential for additional economic commuters. The MSR marketing study also 4. The Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation in this report. development in areas adjacent to the potential showed demand in the fall and winter months Center on Columbus Avenue is the recom- passenger rail station locations is not as great as well. mended location for a regional passenger rail 6. The reuse of the existing historic passenger as the other communities. Stockbridge resi- station in the City of Pittsfield. A passenger rail station site in the downtown area on Cas- dents will have access to the passenger rail ser- 14. The MSR marketing study suggests that travel rail