General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

It makes sense if the mbta was already in good shape, I mean massachusetts is a densely populated state in the entire eastern half. But they don't even have their shit together in Boston, where it would have the most impact, and that's why it looks like nonsense.

If it we were to look at transit as an economic driver, prioritizing by overall impact would be a wise choice.
 
A potential plus I can think of for a Springfield train (if it is truly a "bullet train") is that 2/3 of the route could be used as part of a New Haven-Hartford-Worcester-Boston NEC reroute. But the the logic here should be "If we're already doing Boston-Hartford, it might be worthwhile to build a branch to Springfield," rather than "We should build a route to Springfield, and it might become worthwhile if NEC runs on the corridor."
 
whittle said:
A potential plus I can think of for a Springfield train (if it is truly a "bullet train") is that 2/3 of the route could be used as part of a New Haven-Hartford-Worcester-Boston NEC reroute. But the the logic here should be "If we're already doing Boston-Hartford, it might be worthwhile to build a branch to Springfield," rather than "We should build a route to Springfield, and it might become worthwhile if NEC runs on the corridor."
Click to expand...

The issue there is that it's not an efficient way to reach Boston. The existing NEC corridor in MA is already upgraded to 150mph and sees no conflicts from freight. The corridor between Worcester and Springfield, by contrast, is probably the most important freight rail corridor in MA.
 
Equilibria said:
The issue there is that it's not an efficient way to reach Boston. The existing NEC corridor in MA is already upgraded to 150mph and sees no conflicts from freight.
Click to expand...

The issue with the current routing is in Connecticut and the residents around the existing route in SW CT have shown staunch resistance to straightening out the route there. The other alternative would be building a new corridor from Hartford to Providence. This would be ideal, but since there is no existing major piece of infrastructure (eg an interstate or existing rail corridor) for it to follow, it would also likely meet a greet deal of local resistance.

The corridor between Worcester and Springfield, by contrast, is probably the most important freight rail corridor in MA.
Click to expand...

If we're building any sort of high-speed rail infrastructure in that part of the state, it would primarily be on a new corridor (mostly along the Pike).
 
whittle said:
The other alternative would be building a new corridor from Hartford to Providence. This would be ideal, but since there is no existing major piece of infrastructure (eg an interstate or existing rail corridor) for it to follow, it would also likely meet a greet deal of local resistance.
Click to expand...

This is better covered in the Regional Rail and HSR threads, but Hartford-Providence has had a fair amount of alignment studies done for various I-84 and I-384 proposals over the years. Not sure if ConnDOT or RIDOT actually have easements or own land, but the alignment is definitely more studied than the FRA's tunneling campaign along the coast or a Springfield-Worcester air line. To that end, placing both Hartford and Providence on the HSR spine not only seems politically favorable, it also may be the easiest to do from a ROW standpoint.

Anyway, maybe we should move "Springfield Bullet Train" discussions to the Regional Rail thread?
 
Proposition Joe said:
Because the rest of the state has a massive chip on its soldier in regards to Boston. There is a perception that Boston sucks up state resources and amenities at the expense of the other parts of the state, which causes a spiteful political response that favors disinvestment in urban needs like transit.

There is a very real consolidation of wealth and new employment opportunities in certain cities like Boston, but that has a lot more to do with inherent problems with capitalism than any state policies. A lazy response to this consolidation is to build connections to Boston (Springfield-Boston and South Coast rail), when really the better options have to do with making better investments and choices in the Gateway Cities.

It also makes sense to promise infrastructure upgrades in other parts of the state when you are running a state-wide campaign. Of course, the Knowledge Corridor commuter rail is a much better large infrastructure investment for that region. The best investments for the other regions in the state involve increased RTA funding, bus and bike lanes, eliminating parking minimums and changing zoning, but those aren't sexy and don't come with high enough dollar values to balance out the pissed of car users.
Click to expand...

Much better said than my rant.
 
Uncivil_Engineer said:
This is better covered in the Regional Rail and HSR threads, but Hartford-Providence has had a fair amount of alignment studies done for various I-84 and I-384 proposals over the years. Not sure if ConnDOT or RIDOT actually have easements or own land, but the alignment is definitely more studied than the FRA's tunneling campaign along the coast or a Springfield-Worcester air line. To that end, placing both Hartford and Providence on the HSR spine not only seems politically favorable, it also may be the easiest to do from a ROW standpoint.
Click to expand...

CTDOT does, or at least did have the easements/ownership of the parcels mostly lined up. The issue then becomes that the horizontal curvature for an 80mph highway is not compatible with a 160+mph rail line, requiring the purchase of more land anyway.

woTvKxI.png

I wish I could find more, but this image was from a presentation(ironically) on the database listing surplus parcels for sale by the DOT.

https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/Hartford2014/2014 Presentations/Tuesday/Tech_in_ConnDOT_1.pdf
https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/Hartford2014/2014 Presentations/Tuesday/Tech_in_ConnDOT_2.pdf
 
JeffDowntown said:
But I can tell you from experience, that BB Orange to Blue to Airport Bus is significantly faster than using the Silver Line. That facacca route to the Ted Williams is a big time killer (and you don't get stuck in tunnel traffic).
Click to expand...

If you're at BB Orange, just walk to Copley (stops in front of Hynes and BPL) and take the Back Bay Logan Express. Back Bay to Airport Terminals in 20 minutes.

https://www.massport.com/logan-airport/to-and-from-logan/logan-express/back-bay/
 
JeffDowntown said:
I didn't realize they were still running that bus. I was under the impression it was put in place for the Government Center closure, and would end when Government Center reopened. Clearly still running!
Click to expand...

I think it is hugely successful. I've taken it a couple of times (reduced fare with a Charlie Card) and it always seems to be pretty empty so I don't know where that's coming from. It may just be that community has pull.
 
Yup it's still running! Now that Gov Ctr is open again, the bus is no longer free for MBTA pass holders, but they do still get a discount ($3.00 w/ MBTA pass vs $7.50 w/ no pass.) I have seen this bus pretty full at times, but much of the time there are only a few people on it. I noticed that when you use Google Maps for transit directions, it doesn't know about this route, so I emailed Massport to see if they could publish it (the schedule at least) to Google. It would also be nice if there was integrated payment between the T and Massport shuttles, but that's a whole other issue. Perhaps with AFC 2.0 this will be possible.
 
The MBTA has released ridership numbers for the period of time when the fairmount line was free.

Apparently, ridership increased about 25% from base numbers in the first week of the program, and by the second week were up 44% from base. These gains didn't continue after the free fares program was dropped.

Wonder what the commuter rail will do with this data.

Source: http://mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442458206&month=&year=
 
Need more info though. Could just be people who would normally take Hyde Park or Readville (Franklin line) decided to take the Fairmount line because the price was right.
 
jklo said:
Need more info though. Could just be people who would normally take Hyde Park or Readville (Franklin line) decided to take the Fairmount line because the price was right.
Click to expand...

I would expect them to have monthly passes though, which shouldn't really effect this. Also, I would think that anyone doing this based on price would have a long time ago - the other stops are Zone 1 ($200.25 a month) vs 1a which is only $84.50.
 
bakgwailo said:
Also, I would think that anyone doing this based on price would have a long time ago - the other stops are Zone 1 ($200.25 a month) vs 1a which is only $84.50.
Click to expand...

That is true of Hyde Park vs Fairmont, but Readville is Zone 2 in both lines.
 
I think the real question is as simple as: "What were ridership numbers in the two weeks that FOLLOWED the free trial? Did free trials produce a lasting change in behavior?"

All we know is that the free trial is some kind of upper bound on ridership ("how many would ride transit if it were free?"...though I suppose if we paid people to ride it could go higher ;-)

So I would have liked the free trial to have continued until free ridership leveled off (growing by, say <5%/wk) ...a sign that everyone who might be induced/educated had, in fact, tried it.

For now all we know is that by week 2 we'd changed behavior & educated twice as many people as week 1 did...how much further could it have pressed?
 
whittle said:
That is true of Hyde Park vs Fairmont, but Readville is Zone 2 in both lines.
Click to expand...

Zone 2 is $217. 75/month, so pretty close to Zone 1, but still, my point is that they would have already been going to Fairmont to save well over $100 a month anyways - Fairmont being Zone 1a isn't that new of a thing anymore.

Arlington said:
I think the real question is as simple as: "What were ridership numbers in the two weeks that FOLLOWED the free trial? Did free trials produce a lasting change in behavior?"

All we know is that the free trial is some kind of upper bound on ridership ("how many would ride transit if it were free?"...though I suppose if we paid people to ride it could go higher ;-)

So I would have liked the free trial to have continued until free ridership leveled off (growing by, say <5%/wk) ...a sign that everyone who might be induced/educated had, in fact, tried it.

For now all we know is that by week 2 we'd changed behavior & educated twice as many people as week 1 did...how much further could it have pressed?
Click to expand...

I think one needs to also take into account the lack of being able to normally easily transfer. Right now, without a monthly pass (either ticker or card), you have to basically pay double the subway/bus fair to get to South Station and then transfer to the Red Line/Silver Line/etc, whereas the existing bus service, while slower, gives you that free transfer, so $2.25 vs $4.50 one way - on the round trip you save almost 5 bucks not taking the Fairmont Line. Also, the ticketing (without a monthly) is also annoying on the CR, since a normal Charlie Card cannot be used, and one needs to either purchase on train, via the app, etc.

My question is, how much of an impact was not not so much in making it free, but, in making it that much easier to use, as now it was the same price as the bus (with transfers), and, it took away the less than ideal payment options to use the service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top