Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,066
- Reaction score
- 5,288
Heh, heh...back to the future, 1979.
MBTA Commuter Rail to Concord, NH:
MBTA Commuter Rail to Concord, NH:
Shawsheen station is still standing.
- And, of course, the Haverhill Line is odd. The Route 213 branch and the Rosemont/495 stop never actually opened, and North Andover (closed 1974) never reopened. Shawsheen did reopen with the line in December 1979 but was cut in April 1980.
Yes, it's a nice looking depot building.Shawsheen station is still standing.
49 MA-133
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.maps.app.goo.gl
And, of course, the Haverhill Line is odd. The Route 213 branch and the Rosemont/495 stop never actually opened, and North Andover (closed 1974) never reopened. Shawsheen did reopen with the line in December 1979 but was cut in April 1980.
The ROW is a brand new rail trail now, so probably would not have much support. Operationally it would put lots of stress on the Andover stretch of Haverhill Line that already sees lots of freight traffic, and would outright prevent full Regional Rail frequencies from serving Lawrence and Haverhill (it would be very problematic for missing Lawrence Station entirely). The Route 213 stop siting is also in the middle of nowhere by the bird sanctuary, so wouldn't be TOD-enhanced at all. You'd almost have to cross the state line to go to Rockingham Park, which again invokes the help of very unreliable partners in New Hampshire. It's a very marginal prospect.I've seen more modern proposals to extend the Haverill line to Rosemont, but never branching in the direction of 213. I know the RoW gets consumed before it reaches Manchester, but would a branch to Metheun/213/Salem be viable? Enough to justify diverting trains from Haverill?
I have to assume that poorly worded Transit Matters "end-to-end" comment means most ridership is between a suburban station and a Boston terminus, or reverse; not between two suburban stations. But even that does not really work for the Providence line with significant transfers at Back Bay, Ruggles and Forrest Hills.The Herald reports that TransitMatters just released a study on electrifying the Lowell line and doing the Capitol Corridor to Manchester. (Prepare for the inevitable Howie Carr apoplexy column to follow: "boondoggle"; "will do nothing but encourage NH-based welfare leeches and illegal aliens to invade Mass.," etc., etc.)
The part arguing to restore the Capitol Corridor begins on p. 11. The study states that electrification will cut the current Lowell-North Station time from 46 minutes to 31 minutes, which is certainly significant. I find it bizarre and annoying, though, that the study included this:
"The Lowell Line connects North Station with Lowell in 46 minutes. In comparison, nonstop trains made the trip in 45 minutes when the line first opened in the 1830s."
Well, yes. If you're not going to be decelerating, letting people deboard, letting people board, and reaccelerating 7 separate times along a track that is only 22 miles or so, then... surprise! You can go pretty fast, regardless of if the locomotive technology you are deploying is from the 1830s or the 2030s. Obviously, the rational, apples-to-apples comparison would've been--how long would trains taken in the 1830s to go from Lowell to North Station, if they were making the same number of stops as they do now?
But then TransitMatters wouldn't have been able to amuse itself with its attention-grabbing, but ultimately pointless, little piece of trivia, which seems to demonstrate that "no progress has been made in commuter train service, speed-wise, on the Lowell line, in two centuries."
EDIT: before anyone accuses me of being Howie Carr-like with my above curmudgeonly rant, obviously, it's great that TransitMatters contributes to *enlightened public discourse* by producing such thoughtful--but slender and thus easily-digestible!--studies. Especially given that they're an all-volunteer organization and no one is taking compensation for their labors there, right?
EDIT2: p. 9, first line: "Like the Providence line, most Lowell line ridership is end-to-end..." Wut.
On an average day, taking the Providence line in, I guesstimate that about 10% of the trip's passengers have gotten on with me at Providence. Another 10% at Attleboro. Then maybe 25% at Mansfield, 35% at Sharon, and 20% at Route 128, with essentially zero inbound passengers boarding beyond Route 128. Thus, I am mystified by TransitMatter's claim that "most" Providence line ridership is "end-to-end," unless I am somehow misinterpreting "most" or "end-to-end."
The Herald reports that TransitMatters just released a study on electrifying the Lowell line and doing the Capitol Corridor to Manchester. (Prepare for the inevitable Howie Carr apoplexy column to follow: "boondoggle"; "will do nothing but encourage NH-based welfare leeches and illegal aliens to invade Mass.," etc., etc.)
The part arguing to restore the Capitol Corridor begins on p. 11. The study states that electrification will cut the current Lowell-North Station time from 46 minutes to 31 minutes, which is certainly significant. I find it bizarre and annoying, though, that the study included this:
"The Lowell Line connects North Station with Lowell in 46 minutes. In comparison, nonstop trains made the trip in 45 minutes when the line first opened in the 1830s."
Well, yes. If you're not going to be decelerating, letting people deboard, letting people board, and reaccelerating 7 separate times along a track that is only 22 miles or so, then... surprise! You can go pretty fast, regardless of if the locomotive technology you are deploying is from the 1830s or the 2030s. Obviously, the rational, apples-to-apples comparison would've been--how long would trains taken in the 1830s to go from Lowell to North Station, if they were making the same number of stops as they do now?
But then TransitMatters wouldn't have been able to amuse itself with its attention-grabbing, but ultimately pointless, little piece of trivia, which seems to demonstrate that "no progress has been made in commuter train service, speed-wise, on the Lowell line, in two centuries."
EDIT: before anyone accuses me of being Howie Carr-like with my above curmudgeonly rant, obviously, it's great that TransitMatters contributes to *enlightened public discourse* by producing such thoughtful--but slender and thus easily-digestible!--studies. Especially given that they're an all-volunteer organization and no one is taking compensation for their labors there, right?
EDIT2: p. 9, first line: "Like the Providence line, most Lowell line ridership is end-to-end..." Wut.
On an average day, taking the Providence line in, I guesstimate that about 10% of the trip's passengers have gotten on with me at Providence. Another 10% at Attleboro. Then maybe 25% at Mansfield, 35% at Sharon, and 20% at Route 128, with essentially zero inbound passengers boarding beyond Route 128. Thus, I am mystified by TransitMatter's claim that "most" Providence line ridership is "end-to-end," unless I am somehow misinterpreting "most" or "end-to-end."
Agreed that TM is all volunteer and appreciate their advocacy. However a few quibbles:The Herald reports that TransitMatters just released a study on electrifying the Lowell line and doing the Capitol Corridor to Manchester. (Prepare for the inevitable Howie Carr apoplexy column to follow: "boondoggle"; "will do nothing but encourage NH-based welfare leeches and illegal aliens to invade Mass.," etc., etc.)
The part arguing to restore the Capitol Corridor begins on p. 11. The study states that electrification will cut the current Lowell-North Station time from 46 minutes to 31 minutes, which is certainly significant. I find it bizarre and annoying, though, that the study included this:
"The Lowell Line connects North Station with Lowell in 46 minutes. In comparison, nonstop trains made the trip in 45 minutes when the line first opened in the 1830s."
Well, yes. If you're not going to be decelerating, letting people deboard, letting people board, and reaccelerating 7 separate times along a track that is only 22 miles or so, then... surprise! You can go pretty fast, regardless of if the locomotive technology you are deploying is from the 1830s or the 2030s. Obviously, the rational, apples-to-apples comparison would've been--how long would trains taken in the 1830s to go from Lowell to North Station, if they were making the same number of stops as they do now?
But then TransitMatters wouldn't have been able to amuse itself with its attention-grabbing, but ultimately pointless, little piece of trivia, which seems to demonstrate that "no progress has been made in commuter train service, speed-wise, on the Lowell line, in two centuries."
EDIT: before anyone accuses me of being Howie Carr-like with my above curmudgeonly rant, obviously, it's great that TransitMatters contributes to *enlightened public discourse* by producing such thoughtful--but slender and thus easily-digestible!--studies. Especially given that they're an all-volunteer organization and no one is taking compensation for their labors there, right?
EDIT2: p. 9, first line: "Like the Providence line, most Lowell line ridership is end-to-end..." Wut.
On an average day, taking the Providence line in, I guesstimate that about 10% of the trip's passengers have gotten on with me at Providence. Another 10% at Attleboro. Then maybe 25% at Mansfield, 35% at Sharon, and 20% at Route 128, with essentially zero inbound passengers boarding beyond Route 128. Thus, I am mystified by TransitMatter's claim that "most" Providence line ridership is "end-to-end," unless I am somehow misinterpreting "most" or "end-to-end."
Mishawum does too. Though they were closed for repair for years, letting the station temporarily lapse out of ADA compliance. I think they're conflating all-doors level boarding with basic ADA compliance. West Medford's the only one that is non-compliant.- Page 5 says “Wedgemere, Mishawum and West Medford have only low platforms.” Doesn’t Wedgemere have mini-highs?
- Page 4 gives a $250 million estimate for “Platforms and Stations.” What exactly comprises this amount? The report doesn’t mention. Is it just to reopen Mishawum, provide west access at Anderson, in-fill with Tufts and Montvale stations, and the three new MA stations north of Lowell? Can’t tell at all. How does any of this cost estimate address the 800-pound gorilla in the room that is the cluster at West Medford (no high levels, grade crossings at High and Canal streets)? Whether it’s this study or the Regional Rail one they did last year, the “West Medford” problem always gets glossed over, like it doesn’t exist. Probably should focus on solving this issue vs 100MPH track to improve speeds (train slow to 30MPH max I believe to get through the two grade crossings).
- Page 5 says “Wedgemere, Mishawum and West Medford have only low platforms.” Doesn’t Wedgemere have mini-highs?
Mishawum does too. Though they were closed for repair for years, letting the station temporarily lapse out of ADA compliance.
Is that the one where they cannibalized the mini-highs to repair another station, or am I confusing that with somewhere else?
So, then, pragmatically, Mishawam has no mini-high
FWIW...the NHDOT study lowballed the ridership projections across the board. So in a Regional Rail universe Downtown Manchester probably does outpace MHT by a lot more than NHDOT's study parity. But the Airport stop (and its timed shuttle bus from station to terminal, a la Bradley Airport and the Hartford Line's Windsor Locks station) is such a critical linchpin of the NHDOT study that it's an irresponsible omission, as is it irresponsible to omit the bona-fide large ridership for it. For a report that's published for the express purpose of influencing public opinion, shouldn't there be even the slightest effort to push pre-existing advocacy points? It's not like the Bedford/MHT siting was in any way controversial going in.Yeah, I was surprised at that omission as well.
I've made further comments about the report in the Regional Rail thread, since a lot of my thoughts don't focus on this thread's topic of Commuter Rail to NH.