Hey, there! Log in / Register

They could build a monorail

MassLive reports a group of legislators from the western part of the state want MassDOT to study the idea of a high-speed rail link from Boston to Springfield.

Via Adam Castiglioni.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I think we've all seen what happens when Springfield builds a monorail.

up
Voting closed 0

I call the big one Bitey.

up
Voting closed 0

I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook!

up
Voting closed 0

That's more of a Shelbyville idea...

up
Voting closed 0

They barely have train service from Boston to Springfield. And what was service there decades ago is gone due to lack of ridership.

Lets first build regular rail, and then decide if going to something faster is feasible and ridership warrants this.

up
Voting closed 0

"due to lack of ridership" is a vast oversimplification. When service is largely unavailable, how can there be ridership? When trains take twice as long as driving or taking the bus because we let the infrastructure atrophy and passenger trains must share tracks with freight trains which always have schedule priority, how can you act all dewy-eyed innocent wonder that people don't ride the train?

up
Voting closed 0

stating what the article says.

It just doesn't seem like a good use of funds to build something that may have little ridership. Plus there's no guarantee that ridership will improve with time with high speed service. And who's to say it would even been accomplished, we still haven't had high speed from Boston to NYC due to many complications, how do we know this won't yield the same issues as the NEC.

You just need to look at Worcester Airport to see how well this has worked out with throwing money at something in hopes it would attract ridership. How many Airlines have come and gone from Worcester Airport? Too many to count in the past 10 years.

Show me real numbers of expected ridership and you'll have my full support. I just don't think the state can provide numbers because it just doesn't exist and hasn't for decades along this corridor.

And frankly last time I looked at Amtrak vs a Bus to go anywhere, Amtrak was always so much more expensive and cost prohibited, the bus was far better and cheaper and faster.

up
Voting closed 0

"How many Airlines have come and gone from Worcester Airport? Too many to count in the past 10 years."

Allegiant Air 2005–2006
Direct Air 2008–2012
Jet Blue 2013-

up
Voting closed 0

Passenger counts coming in ahead of projections, with 80% load factors. People seem to pay for convenience: vaca week fares out of ORH are quite high; on par with fares from BOS. It helps that JetBlue is a real airline; people are more likely to book a ticket if the airline won't take their money and run if they go under (that happened with Direct Air).

up
Voting closed 0

Go back further.. to say 1995, and you'll see what I mean.

Sorry I keep forgetting we're now half way thru the 2010s... :)

And I still stand by my comment regardless. Having one airline with one or two flights a day (as the case was Allegiant and Direct Air), isn't providing any service, it's a subsidy grab.

Wake me up when Worcester has two or more airlines and has more than five flights a day and has ridership to support it. (because they can't)

up
Voting closed 0

I get what you're saying, since 1990 there have been 10 airlines at ORH. It's really not an issue of lack of demand, I'm from the area and know there are plenty of people who would love to be able to use the airport more but the problem, like you said, has a lot to do with the availability of flights and also cost. I'd be interested to see how Worcester would fair if it would actually offer more and more convenient flights. There are certainly many people in Worcester County who would love the option of not having to drive to Boston/Providence/Manchester/Hartford if they could avoid it.

up
Voting closed 0

and in full disclosure..

I'm well aware this discussion is about Springfield. But with Worcester, much of the reason why it hasn't taken off is its location. Its nowhere near a highway or very easy to get to.

But my point of mentioning Worcester Airport is how the state throws money at something in hopes it will yield ridership, when in reality it just is a black hole for money.

up
Voting closed 0

Is a bad idea because there's zero access to it without having to find your way around city streets and a rather large New England residential neighborhood set up more like suburbia than a city. It's well placed for a city airport, but it needs access to roadways to do its job as a regional airport, and there's no way to do that without billions or carving up residential neighborhoods. It this case it's location, location, location. Massport should have shut it down, and relocated it somewhere else with infrastructure support it needs.

On the other hand, high speed rail with 4 stops in Springfield, Worcester, Natick, and Boston that could do the trip in an hour would be very popular. The pike is already a 90+ min trip from Worcester to Boston by 5:45 am regularly (And often longer). Being only 45 miles away it's ripe for additional development if we can figure out how to get people into the city in a reasonable time.

A high speed rail with limited stops running the length of the pike would be very popular, and connect the city with regions where housing is a bit more affordable and people are being forced to live. Meanwhile those places would have a direct line to the economic center of New England.

Seems like a win/win to me.

up
Voting closed 0

How can you ever guarantee the utilization of a service that doesn't exist yet? Seems like a convenient way to get out of building anything. "real numbers of expected ridership" is a nonsense term and you know it.

The last time I took Amtrak anywhere, it was from Portland to Seattle and it was awesome, fast, great scenery, and quite reasonably priced. So my anecdotal experience beats your anecdotal experience. Take that.

up
Voting closed 0

How can you ever guarantee the utilization of a service that doesn't exist yet? Seems like a convenient way to get out of building anything. "real numbers of expected ridership" is a nonsense term and you know it.

It's not, This works both ways. Either for or against the new service. You can't say you'll have X of riders, when there's no comparable existing service. And you can't say, people won't ride it because you have no comparable existing service either. So its a no win.

However I think the state knows the numbers. They don't pull this crap out of thin air and expect it to work. There would be transfer from other services (mainly peter pan), and they know this. And if they don't, they better. Its a hard sell to the tax payers when you can't even say how many new riders this service will attract (if any at all) vs other transit projects that need more attention than this where I can very easily pull ridership numbers.

up
Voting closed 0

Show me real numbers of expected ridership and you'll have my full support. I just don't think the state can provide numbers because it just doesn't exist and hasn't for decades along this corridor.

This is why we fund studies, so that we can argue from facts, rather than guesses.

up
Voting closed 0

NYC
Vermont
Chicago (via Lakeshore Ltd)

This could also open service to Montreal.

up
Voting closed 0

but its going to be a hard sell to convert many riders from buses.

I can take a bus in 2hrs from Boston and end up in White River Jct. How long would that take on a train? 4+ hours. Plus the cost is 45 bucks vs 100+ for a train.

Its going to be hard sell.. as it is with any Amtrak service.. because its so costly. A bus from Boston to Springfield costs 35 bucks vs 75 or more for Amtrak? I just don't think the state is going to attract riders at those prices.

I'm not against this. I love transit. But cost per rider for the build out is too much money for such little yield in the end.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd also love to see rail expansion to Springfield (maybe it could be part of an express line to Worcester) - but we know that things like expanding the blue line to Lynn and the orange one freakin' stop to Roslindale would see far more ridership and have a much bigger economic (and traffic) impact. The south coast rail is supposed to have 4,000 riders a day FOR THE ENTIRE LINE. A Roslindale orange line station would see almost twice that FOR JUST ONE STOP. Of course Roslindale or Lynn doesn't have the same political clout as say the entire western part of the state... we all like the idea of trains, but let's put them were people actually need them.

up
Voting closed 0

On a free-flowing highway, the bus would do fine. The issue is that on the Pike, rush hour now extends from 6 am to 10 am, 3 pm to 7 pm, longer on Friday nights or holidays, and Saturday and Sunday regularly see hours-long backups. There's really no way to add capacity to the Turnpike without spending a ton of money to, say, add a carpool lane, and it still doesn't serve Worcester on the way, so it's an extra 20 minutes to do so (and few buses do that, especially at rush hour). Plus, a 3 hour bus ride gets uncomfortable real quick (airplane legroom, seat pitch of ~30") while a longer-distance train is quite a bit more comfortable (Amtrak has 39" pitch, about that of First Class on an airplane).

Meanwhile, the rail line should have some capacity, especially if it was dispatched and/or the rest of it bought by the state. 79 mph would be quite possible to Worcester (and 90 or 110 not out of the question), especially since there are only four grade crossings in two pairs (Framingham and Ashland) that would need to be upgraded. If you could get to Worcester in 45 minutes (as opposed to 58 minutes for the Lake Shore and 70 for the fastest MBTA train) it would be a game-changer for Worcester, putting it that much closer to Boston. If you could then run the rest of the line reliably in an hour (average speed of 54 mph) you'd be as fast as the bus, without the whole issue of constant traffic on the Pike. That's a heavier lift: the line is now single-tracked west of Worcester, there's more freight traffic, several towns (Brookfield, Warren, Palmer) would want—and should get—service, and a branch to Amherst (that little college town that has two or three direct buses to Boston per week) would be plausible, too.

It certainly would be spendy. Perhaps you could leverage some money out of the casino. But it would also serve as much better connection between Boston, Worcester and Springfield which, last time I checked, are the Commonwealth's three largest cities. The Pike was this connection in the '50s, but it's increasingly at or over capacity, and 3 hours to get from Boston to Springfield is really too long.

Someone digitized a map of the B&A from the '50s with grades and curvature. There are some speed-limiting curves east of Springfield, but not many that would preclude higher speeds. This is less the case west of Springfield, where the line climbs across the Berkshires. Remember, this railroad was completed in 1841 and generally runs the original route, including several of the original granite bridges.

As for the costs, Amtrak service to Portland Maine takes longer than the bus (except at rush hour) but serves the intermediate cities and towns well, and has been quite successful. Fares are about the same as the bus. FWIW, train fares for the one train a day to Springfield are about $20, again, on par with bus fares. And some trains could connect with or run through to Northampton and Greenfield or Hartford and New Haven. So there's some opportunity there. Plus, politically, it's a way to earn points outside of greater Boston, which is always a consideration (why do you think South Coast Rail lives on?).

up
Voting closed 0

I can take a bus in 2hrs from Boston and end up in White River Jct.

Why would you want to? I mean, if you're going to Vermont...

up
Voting closed 0

first off my folks live just south of there.

My point was, I can take a bus that will take 2 hours to WRJ or I can take a train that will take 4 hours? Which would you choose? Sorry I'll take a direct bus for 200, Alex.

up
Voting closed 0

Have you been to the bus terminal in Springfield? Has it had renovations and an attitude upgrade in the last few years? If not, it continues to be a complete dump because Peter Pan has no competition and generally hates its customers.

Sell a dignified, reliable ride on dedicated passenger-rail priority lines from a dignified terminal and I would imagine you couldn't get passengers off the buses quickly enough.

up
Voting closed 0

Have you been to the bus terminal in Springfield? Has it had renovations and an attitude upgrade in the last few years? If not, it continues to be a complete dump because Peter Pan has no competition and generally hates its customers.

It is a dump. But you are aware Peter Pan *owns* the terminal? Unlike South Station which is owned by the state/MBTA, in SPF it's owned by Peter Pan.

Edit: this is also the reason why Union Station in Springfield will never have a combo bus terminal like South Station. Peter Pan refuses to move without being paid to do so. (and they want a TON of money for their current station). Peter Pan has the state bent over a barrel on this one.

up
Voting closed 0

Peter Pan has an effective monopoly in Western Mass and thus does what it pleases, which includes providing really awful service. It's not so much that they have the state over a barrel, but the Picknelly family is earlobe-deep in local and state politics enough to actively block any potential development of bus alternatives.

They dont't just influence transpo policy through friendships, they make policy. One of them was on Deval's transportation transition team in 2006.

Which, just.. when I heard that back then, my brain a-sploded.

up
Voting closed 0

Western Mass needs Fung Wah.

up
Voting closed 0

Any bus company can start an interstate service can start up if they meet safety requirements. But an in-state bus requires specific permission from the state.

In New York State, competitive bus companies get around this by passing through New Jersey on the way from NYC to upstate.

up
Voting closed 0

Regular train service isn't sexy. By advocating for "high speed" rail, you're more likely to get political support.

But you are right cybah. The key to promoting and keeping ridership is having a service that is frequent and reliable, even if the trains don't do 200 mph.

up
Voting closed 0

I kind of wonder how much of this is hot air and an attempt from politicians in eastern Mass telling Western Mass that "We still care about you, this is what we MIGHT do for you" and it amounts to nothing.

And yes you're right, high speed rail service is a sexy sell and wins votes. Regular service, not so much.

up
Voting closed 0

Don't underestimate the commuting potential.

No joke - people commute to Paris hundreds of kilometers each way using the TGV in France, and people also commute using Amtrak to Providence.

One hour from Boston and a 15 minute drive to some quaint Pioneer Valley spot would be utterly doable.

up
Voting closed 0

No joke - people commute to Paris hundreds of kilometers each way using the TGV in France

But that's Europe, and I've said time and time again that Europe's view of transit is far different than ours. There people will do that because there are no other means to get around, and the riders welcome when transit comes to their town. Here.. its fought tooth and nail every time.

Like I said, it'll be a hard sell to the masses. I just don't think it will attract the number of commuters that people think it will attract. Leisure riders, absolutely, commuters, not so much.

up
Voting closed 0

A substantial number of people already commute round trip from Providence to Boston on a daily basis.

That isn't in Europe.

up
Voting closed 0

Show me numbers of daily commuting ridership. Not total ridership for the line. How many commuters from providence use the service daily to commute to Boston. I don't think it's as much as you think it is ...

PS - I did read.

up
Voting closed 0

That makes it a bit tricky to calculate - but the daily numbers Boston-bound boardings for Providence alone are around 2,500. Wickford adds 160 (station open two years) and TF Greene another 230.

That means 2500-3000 people per day.

Source: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/documents/2014%20BLUEBOOK%2014th%20Edi...

Now, lets look at housing prices:
Average SFH price, Boston: $370,000
Average SFH price, Springfield: $125,000
Average SFH price, Providence area: $230,000

For some, the train would make the commute worth it.

up
Voting closed 0

you're forgetting one thing. where is their destination. Those 2500 people could all be getting off in S. Attleboro!

Thats the problem with numbers from the T and why I worded my reply in the manner that I did because its IMPOSSIBLE to know because the MBTA does not collect exit locations. Only boardings.

up
Voting closed 0

If you don't get on quickly, you might have to wait for the next train. Even after the inner stops, you would find yourself standing all the way to Providence.

Also, there are a similar number exiting in Providence, according to Amtrak.

Commuters.

up
Voting closed 0

many many times.. lots of friends in Providence. I even reverse commuted there a few years ago for a job at Citizens Bank (4 month contract)

up
Voting closed 0

I'm one of those Providence-to-Boston commuters. I assure you, on the morning rush hour trains, nobody gets off before Back Bay. Likewise, on the afternoon rush hour trains to Providence, nobody gets on after Ruggles. And these trains are packed- often standing room only.

up
Voting closed 0

Latest Blue Book claims that an estimated 2,325 riders board the train at Providence station, by itself, on a typical weekday.

I guess I can't prove to you that all those people work in Boston. Maybe the passenger surveys of 2009 can help answer that question, but I don't feel like digging through them right now.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove? That people don't or wouldn't commute to Boston by train? That seems quixotic...

up
Voting closed 0

trying to prove that you can't say "well all of these people commute to boston" because the numbers for exit locations do not exist.

Not saying people don't but it may not be as much as people think it is.

up
Voting closed 0

You asked, we provided.

Ball's in your court.

I can say that I know at least 5 people who do this, btw. So FIVE people total CONFIRMED. Unless they are lying to me and get off at Attleboro or something.

up
Voting closed 0

You didn't answer my question you gave me boardings but not actual numbers of how many people work in boston. Don't assume Swirls... don't.

And five people isn't a consensus of people who work in Boston. That's less than 1% of total riders that board in providence.

You can't prove it.. no one can. I think that's where I was getting to.

I'm dropping this whole thing now.. afternoon of meetings. Wee!

up
Voting closed 0

Take a trip on the Pike at 6AM on a weekday from Worcester to Boston. Now do it 5 days a week.

I'm guessing a lot of those people would jump at the idea to take a train instead. Rush hour is regularly 6-10 am and it takes 90-110 min to move 45 miles. The express from Worcester is only marginally slower already, and is usually packed as well.

Springfield alone is a hard sell, but adding two more stops in Worcester/Natick and it makes a ton of sense.

This would also eventually connect Boston to Chicago and Montreal. Hopefully.

http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html

up
Voting closed 0

Europe also had the advantage of being obliterated several times over the centuries so there was room for new infrastructure and land to be claimed to construct new things easier.

up
Voting closed 0

The rights of way are already in place for these projects. The corridors exist - they need only be improved.

up
Voting closed 0

Also irrelevant in that (a) we have more open space in America than in Europe, obliteration notwithstanding, and (b) transit development in Europe has not been at a standstill since 1945, as far as know.

up
Voting closed 0

Agreed with you strongly on EMass politicians intending to do absolutely nothing for WMass. OTOH, WMass did just get more passenger service along the Connecticut River corridor...so we shall see.

up
Voting closed 0

But, if you turn it into an HSR project, you can kick out the freight traffic and make it regular.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously. Just add a regular commuter rail line. Follow the pork...

The State Senate President is Stanley Rosenberg of Amherst. Now, something like 80% of the population of Mass is served by the MBTA. Just not Western Mass. So when funding for repairs and improvements to the MBTA comes up... it doesn't have anything to offer for the people out West. So, Western Mass politicos LOVE to block funding to the T.

The MBTA is mainly a cash cow for the state. It has to be. Take a trip 5 miles into Boston on the Commuter rail. $4! One way! Did it cost them $4 to carry you there? Heck no!

Add a single commuter rail line to Western Mass. Then, all of a sudden, they have skin in the game. People will buy houses out west, and commute into work in the city (houses are cheap out there!).

They want a high speed line? Are you kidding me? I've seen it take 3 hours to get from North Station to Waltham (great job on maintenance Keolis)! Let them have a regular commuter line. Let them use the same old trains (make sure they're last on the list for upgraded trains; Tie that into last years ridership density or something) that make life so interesting for the people of the Commonwealth. I've been stuck on a commuter rail 6 hours from South Station to Grafton one time! Let's see how long it takes to get to Springfield?

It solves everything neatly. One-two-three. They'll have more taxpaying voters in the problem areas clamoring for more investment in the MBTA. You remove the roadblock to infrastructure improvement. And the T starts getting fixed.

On a side note, notice how the Red and Orange lines are finally getting new cars, to be built in Western Mass? Wanna bet the funding would have been blocked if they tried to buy cars built by Bombadier?

up
Voting closed 0

High-speed rail between Boston and Springfield will be a great thing to have for intercity travelers on special trips 25 years from now.

A token train between Massachusetts and West Mass helps very few people and is an extremely close-minded proposal compared to the alternatives:

  • People are already commuting on the train that already exists here and they're chained to a bullshit schedule hampered by bullshit track layout and bullshit heat or speed or whatever the Keolis restriction du jour is these days, we supposedly bought those tracks, but we can't get them cleaned up? The best we can do is propose a bullshit "West Station" for the five-ringed circus coming to town. How about cleaning up the section of commuter rail line that we've got right now first? High level platforms for Tracks 5&7 in Back Bay and platforms on both sides of the tracks for all those underused stations in Newton should rate as higher priorities than the leisure boat to Springfield, or for that matter, "West Station."
  • People in Springfield are also already commuting to and from places around Springfield. Before inventing a hypothetical commuter base for a service that won't exist for another decade at the earliest, how about adequately serving the commuter base living out west today? UMass Amherst kids don't care about getting from Springfield to Boston when they can't even catch the train to Springfield. Westfield, Holyoke, all these communities surrounding Springfield where the tracks are already - why don't they deserve to have an alternative to freeways that get just as congested or worse out there? Take care of them first, then worry about the Berkshires pork and gravy train.
  • For that matter, tracks extend from Worcester Union Station in all directions, not just to Boston. While we're hard at work cleaning that place up (and my oh my does Worcester Union Station need to be cleaned up), maybe we could work on serving the commute needs of that region beyond merely shuttling people to Boston and back. The rails run between Worcester and Fitchburg already, we ought to be able to shuttle commuters between those two places. The rails run past College Hill and down to Millbury, the rails run the 290 corridor into Auburn, to all these places that have commuters who deserve another option right now and neglected infrastructure we could use to provide it. Solve the problems in front of you before inventing new problems in need of solutions!
  • The train to Montreal ain't going through Springfield. The train to New York ain't going through Springfield. The train to Burlington or White River Junction is only going through Springfield because the goons in New Hampshire refuse to have anything to do with passenger rail, and attitudes still may change in the great red north. You want to run a train out to those places, great, let's have the conversation about rail to Montreal or Burlington or better trains to NYC - but don't drag the route well out of its natural alignment just so you can check cities off on some list. The purpose of rail is ultimately to serve travelers, not mapmakers. Besides, there are legitimate trains to places that run through Springfield already - Toronto and Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and the rest of New York's great upstate. You don't need to invent reasons to run trains through Springfield because there are plenty of legitimate reasons there already.

And yet, in spite of all of this, it's going to be the pork 'n' gravy train that gets the press and the funding in the end. That's one of the reasons why transit has become so divisive in this damn country - because people have latched onto what transit ought to look like in 2095 to the willful exclusion of what transit needs to look like in 2025. Impressive proposals for grand sweeping high-speed networks and fanciful visions of commuting like they do in Paris, absolutely no desire to speed up today's trains or serve today's commuters. Getting the most from today's infrastructure is lame, right? We gotta build new. Fixing what's there now is boring, right? Show us the new toys.

up
Voting closed 0

I think connecting Amherst and all the other college towns/cities in Western MA via rail is a great idea, as well as the tourist- heavy areas-- Great Barrington, Lenox etc. But all this could spiderweb off an east-west TransMassachusetts route.

up
Voting closed 0

1. "A token train between Massachusetts and West Mass ". Oh my. You said it, I didn't.

2. "UMass Amherst kids don't care about getting from Springfield to Boston when they can't even catch the train to Springfield." But they can. Until a few weeks ago, the train went right through Amherst (now it's Northampton instead, easily reachable by PVTA, and the train stops in Greenfield).

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, we should be running frequent trains all over the place.

But to do that, we'd have to get out of the 1880s mentality of running infrequent huge slow trains with several employees per train.

In Germany, they've revitalized branch lines to tiny villages in the woods, with *hourly service*. They did it by figuring out how to run quick, cheap, single-car trains with a single employee. (They also build stations for $100,000 each. Multiply that by 100 for the Green Line Extension.)

Yet the best we can do between Boston and Worcester, the two biggest cities in New England, is a train every hour or two (every 30 minutes at rush hour). And weekends? Don't bother -- rent a car.

If we could run trains with Germany's costs (and labor isn't exactly cheap there), we could justify trains from Worcester to Fitchburg and then some.

up
Voting closed 0

My partner has family in Springfield. I had the delightful experience of taking a six hour bus ride out there not long ago, because I couldn't get off work early enough to take the one lonely Amtrak train. The bus was packed on a Tuesday at 5ish, there was a nasty accident on the Pike, and everyone sitting around me was commuting which made me very very grateful for the Orange Line.

So, yay! Bring it on. And it will connect with the Amtrak train to St. Albans/Burlington, so you ski/foliage aficiondos can drink your way north in the Club Car if you wish.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm with you. Driving out on the Pike used to be hellacious only on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. But, in the past 15-18 years it's become a crapshoot almost every Friday as to whether or not you're going to hit traffic at I-84, and how long the backup is going to be. I don't even go out anymore on Memorial/Labor Day weekends unless I can leave early in the day on Friday.

up
Voting closed 0

That's all so true, and it's not even just Friday. I'll do just about any contortions to avoid driving the Pike in the summer.

up
Voting closed 0

It also might enable the possibility of taking a train to Hartford without going via New Haven.

up
Voting closed 0

I think the tracks between Springfield and New Haven are already being upgraded, so if the Springfield/Boston tracks are upgrades as well it would be a big boost for rail traffic in Southern New England.

Another thing I've long heard is that the height of the overpasses on the Worcester to Boston section of this line seriously limits the efficiency of the Port of Boston because containers cannot be double stacked until after Worcester. For this reason, the Port of Providence is winning out.

up
Voting closed 0

is severly limited because this state, in the name of "progress", sold one rail yard in Boston to Harvard and another one in Charlestown to a car dealer. Not to mention that we built an underwater tunnel (Williams) that now prevents the Port of Boston from accepting deep draft vessels because it was constructed incorrectly.

up
Voting closed 0

Agreed. I take the train out to Pittsfield a few times a year, and it's almost always sold out with lots of people getting off and on at Springfield. There's obviously a demand for train service out west so I'm all for it being improved.

up
Voting closed 0

High-speed trip from Boston to Springfield. A shuttle to the Big E.

Mmmmmmm...Maine potatoes and lobstah rolls...arghallghalghghglhghl.

up
Voting closed 0

As long as they don't model the rail after the Soviet train to the gulags that is the LIRR, I'd be happy with this.

up
Voting closed 0

I believe it's only 2.5 hours from NYC to Springfield, driving....if we connect Boston and Springfield, could we also connect it to NYC? You can buy a mansion in Springfield for $250K, so the city needs some help :)

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not sure where they'd install rail for that, sure a lot of it exists in some form but good luck trying to get ANY transit infrastructure done in CT. They still have that loopy mess of highway to nowhere around Hartford.

up
Voting closed 0

This actually would be huge - Springfield suddenly becomes a train hub between Boston, Montreal, and NYC... although it's currently an 8 hour bus ride to Montreal from Boston... if they can improve on this and make it closer to the amount of time it takes to drive there, then I think this will be well used.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd love to see train service from Boston to Montreal if it allowed bikes but otherwise it would serve only a small amount of people. There is already plenty of flights between the two cities which take far less time.

Look at the Boston -> NYC/DC route. It's generally cheaper to fly then take Acela and that's the "nice" train going about as fast as a train can in the US.

As for Boston -> Springfield service, just start running a few MBTA trains a day much the Cape Flyer. They could start by doing a morning and evening round trip and if it catches on expand service.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd love to see train service from Boston to Montreal if it allowed bikes but otherwise it would serve only a small amount of people. There is already plenty of flights between the two cities which take far less time.

Please show me how to find these "plenty of flights" between Boston and Montreal. I'm being serious. I would love to go more often, but non-stop flights are always priced in excess of $500, and connecting flights take so long you might as well take the bus, which itself takes over 8 hours (+ who knows what at the border).

Look at the Boston -> NYC/DC route. It's generally cheaper to fly then take Acela and that's the "nice" train going about as fast as a train can in the US.

Why in the world would you compare a discount flight to a premium rail service? Just take the Northeast Regional instead. Usually half the price of the Acela and almost as quick. I use it several times a year to visit NYC.

Now, to be sure, the popularity of the train has gotten so high that the prices are starting to climb in recent years. It's quite possible that you can find a flight or two that is cheaper than the Northeast Regional. But then you have to go through LGA, JFK, or EWR... no fun at all. It's no wonder people are still willing to pay more for the train even when there's cheaper flights available.

The high prices come about because Amtrak sells out trains on a regular basis now. Clearly, a popular service. They're currently looking into ways of increasing the capacity of the rail line so that it can serve more people at a lower price.

As for Boston -> Springfield service, just start running a few MBTA trains a day much the Cape Flyer. They could start by doing a morning and evening round trip and if it catches on expand service.

Yes, that would be a great idea. But renovation work has to go into the line before it is ready for increased service, or else you just end up with the same old problems that the Lake Shore Limited currently faces. The Cape Flyer was able to benefit from a long process of track upgrades -- it didn't just show up one day -- and even then there's a lot more work to be done south of the canal.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, if you have a LOT of money. You could probably buy a car for what a couple round-trips cost!

It is currently much cheaper to drive to Montreal, stay at a hotel, pay the $20 to bunk the car for the week, and then fly Montreal to Calgary than it is to fly Boston to Montreal to Calgary.

Not an option, absent an expense account.

As for Boston to NYC, well, did you factor in $50-100 to get into downtown or midtown from the airport? I bet you didn't. Also, add an extra hour or more to do so. It doesn't make ANY sense to fly.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't say I was opposed to a Boston -> Montreal train. I'd use it particularly if they allowed unboxed bikes. I just don't think it would get a ton of use given the amount of time it would take.

According to Google Flights Air Canada has five daily non-stop flights to Montreal for $440 round trip -- you save $100 more with a layover. Not as cheap as it used to be but still plenty of flights.

My original message was about both DC and NYC -- I fly and take the train to both. The train used to be cheaper but now it's hard to find a $150 (round trip) train ticket to NYC whereas it isn't too hard to find a round-trip flight for the same. The amount of time equals out or is better if you are only going to Queens or have a friend to pick you up. Going to DC flying makes even more sense -- a flight to National puts you right downtown in a fraction of the time (or cost) of taking most trains.

I like Amtrak. I just with the NE trains weren't so expensive and the long distance trains not so slow.

Back to the original topic: A 1-2 times a day train to Springfield would be good even if the train wasn't too fast. If it becomes well used then start investing in track/train upgrades.

up
Voting closed 0

How are you getting as cheap as $440? The best I can do with Google Flights is $515, planned weeks in advance.

I am genuinely curious. Am I missing out on a deal?

P.S. I believe that a regular-speed train could be competitive with the bus even if the train had to go through Springfield in order to use existing rights-of-way. Heck, the current Amtrak with all of its problems can do Springfield to St Albans in 5.75 hours. The current LSL can get to Springfield from Boston in 3.5 hours. Both of those times are severely crippled by the very poor state of infrastructure and freight-friendly dispatching. I'm not going to claim that fixing those issues is easy, but it's a heck of a lot easier than a brand new right-of-way. But supposing US passenger rail was finally reformed and run competently, I do think that it is very plausible for a regular-speed train to do BOS-MTL in a bus-competitive 8 hours, even via Springfield. And that leaves plenty of room for incremental improvement that could bring it below 7 hours for the trip. Great scenery too.

Of course, that involves "US passenger rail reform" and "competence", so I don't blame anyone for being skeptical. I'm pretty skeptical of it ever happening, myself.

up
Voting closed 0

Anyway, my google search is this:

https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=BOS;t=YUL;d=2015-02-05;r=2015-0...

That comes out to $440 for me although it looks like you might need to change planes on the return. For $330 you can change planes both ways and with the layover it is a 4h30m trip. Still quicker then driving if you assume not too much time at the airports.

If the choice was ~10 hours each way on a train for $200 (round trip) or ~5 hours on a plane for $330 (round trip) I'd be take the plane. But I'd be happy for the choice.

up
Voting closed 0

... a few times over the past 2 years. Hope it happens-
http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/07/18/boston-to-montreal-train-hotel-...

up
Voting closed 0

Throw in a side order of the trolley from Arborway too....

up
Voting closed 0

This state can't build conventional commuter or light rail on existing rights of way without spending billions more than any comparable rail project. Even if the demand is there for Boston to Springfield, it's not going to be cost-effective.

If you want to talk about sensible rail improvements, forget the South Coast and forget Springfield. Extend the Blue Line to Lynn, bring the commuter rail tracks on the North Shore into the 21st century and get the DMUs on the Fairmount Line. That's where the ridership is.

Furthermore, we ought to be able to pay for commuter rail trips with Charlie Cards.

up
Voting closed 0