Manchester to Boston HSR

[Kahta]

http://g.co/maps/wxyh3

A big issue with multi-modal transit schemes is that they don't operate fast enough to make reasonable commute times (40 minutes) possible, especially for outer suburbs that rely on commuter rail, so they are doomed to failure. This is especially exaggerated in the Boston area where high property prices and relatively lower costs of living have pushed commuters into New Hampshire. Traffic congestion on I-93 in MA is going to continue to worsen, especially with the completion of the 8-lane NH section and added capacity in MA where it is currently 6 lanes. The solution?

True high speed rail. By traveling at an average speed of 100 miles per hour and making only a handful of stops, it's possible to dramatically reduce inbound and outbound travel times on existing right of ways.

There are two build options in NH, one along I-93, and one along an old railroad ROW. The only stops are near areas with ample space for parking facilities, since NH does not have population density that is conducive to walking to public transit.

In MA, there are two build options, one follows the path of I-93, and the other uses an existing right now way. Extensive parking facilities are required along both paths, and there should be a minimum number of stops, as to maximize the average speed.

Additionally, the HOV lane shall be extended northward on I-93S up to Montvale Avenue.

 

[whighlander]

I think it makes more sense to go down Rt-3 to Nashua (for NH a big city) then to Lowell and from there you can use the existing infrastructure

PS these days you've got to include a Spurr to Manchester Airport a la TF Green and the Comuter Rail to Providence

 

[Kahta]

I don't have any numbers on traffic congestion, but I-93 is substantially more congested and as I said above is going to get even worse once NH doubles the capacity. I don't know anything about traffic flow, but I feel like a lot of the Route 3 problems are related to the lack of capacity on 128 and the trumpet interchange that should have been converted to a flyover to Rt 3 north and a solid two lane C/D with additional acceleration space for the merge onto 128. Also, IIRC, NHDOT was required to leave the median of the expanded I-93 open for eventual development of a rail line into Boston.

I didn't feel that a spur to the airport was necessary because of the high capital costs of laying rail and the station is so close that it wasn't necessary.

However, I guess an alternate build could put the station along the old ROW to the southeast corner of the airport, but I felt that given the population density of NH isn't conducive to building an HSR station in what is essentially a residential neighborhood of single family homes. It would be like deciding to put South Station in the middle of West Roxbury.



I'm saving the median of Route 3 for another project that isn't so sustainable

 

[BostonUrbEx]

If you're going to go through Lawrence, then HSR would probably run up the Lowell to Wilmington, the Wildcat to Andover, then the Haverhill to Lawrence.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Also, true HSR shouldn't have stops in the farthest reaches of Boston's exurbs (ie: Don't stop in N Salem or Wilmington, perhaps not even Salem at all)

 

[JohnCostello]

Nice thinking and all but you know the Tea Party controlled state legislature in NH is trying to rip everything it (or it may have already) can out of any passenger rail service on the Concord / Nashua corridor. Their thought process is why should they fund anything that brings people to jobs into Massachusetts when they can be in their pick up trucks in a nice big parking lot in Merrimack or Londonderry. Besides more rail beds with no trains means more snowmobiling and hunting access corridors. Short of an annexation by Massachusetts of Hillsborough County, this is not happening anytime soon. Trains are socialist. You have to adhere to government ordained timetables to get to your destination. That's not the New Hampshire Way. As Ty Webb said - "This isn't Russia, is it?"

 

[Kahta]

Also, true HSR shouldn't have stops in the farthest reaches of Boston's exurbs (ie: Don't stop in N Salem or Wilmington, perhaps not even Salem at all)

The goal here is to pull as much traffic from I-93 as possible, presumably the goal would be to have this work with the local access bus system that's been proposed for 128.

I agree that N. Salem is probably excessive.

Nice thinking and all but you know the Tea Party controlled state legislature in NH is trying to rip everything it (or it may have already) can out of any passenger rail service on the Concord / Nashua corridor. Their thought process is why should they fund anything that brings people to jobs into Massachusetts when they can be in their pick up trucks in a nice big parking lot in Merrimack or Londonderry. Besides more rail beds with no trains means more snowmobiling and hunting access corridors. Short of an annexation by Massachusetts of Hillsborough County, this is not happening anytime soon. Trains are socialist. You have to adhere to government ordained timetables to get to your destination. That's not the New Hampshire Way. As Ty Webb said - "This isn't Russia, is it?"

The best way to promote this plan would be to say "Yeah, but all those people from MA will take the train to the Salem Mall to avoid paying sales tax, and all the workers can avoid the income tax." (Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people that work in MA pay the tax regardless of residency?)

 

[JohnCostello]

There is no tax on clothes in MA, remember? Some of the only things you could buy in Salem NH at a mall that would be taxed in MA is jewelery, some tools or a flat screen. Would you take the bother of lugging something on a train, say a 46 inch LCD or a table saw, to save a few bucks in tax money? Have you walked around the Pheasant Lane Mall area? There are very few sidewalks. Who has the kind of mentality that you would spend time to take a train on a Saturday in mid-February to walk up and down the DW shopping? A few bored 13 year old nerds from Chelmsford? The Sears at Pheasant Lane was designed so that the parking lot was in MA and the store itself is in NH to avoid sales taxes.

Secondly, NH's office and industrial development is predicated on cars, not trains. No daffy idiot(s) is going to spend billions on a train so a developer will throw up a few ribbon steel and glass two story office buildings along a train line somewhere in Bedford or Merrimack. NH was built on niggardly pecuniary. Town income is based on the property tax. Outlying towns will make deals in greenfields for development over some city like Nashua hoping some developer will spend millions cleaning up a brownfield site east of BAE downtown for some office park.

 

[MonopolyBag]

Also, true HSR shouldn't have stops in the farthest reaches of Boston's exurbs (ie: Don't stop in N Salem or Wilmington, perhaps not even Salem at all)

Living in Salem, it has to stop there for shopping purposes.

But I agree, too many stops. I see Salem (Exit 2), Londonderry (Exit 4), then Manchester near airport then to downtown. Lawrence, Reading and then no stops till Boston. Reason is they already have a train where it is close enough to make that worth taking. Then into North Station.

One person said Rt. 3, as I agree this is important, but 93 gets more traffic IMO. I may be wrong, but this is what I see. 495 is the worse form East to West. But the proposed MBTA extension to Nashua up to Concord, which will happen, just a matter of time, is going to follow rt basically and go through Nashua. That leaves 93 empty with the exception of the Boston Express Bus.

I also think High speed is as important South to RI and West to Worcester as like you said, it is not as practically to take MBTA commuter rail to Worcester from Boston based on time. I could also see Portland, but that Down Eastern is pretty fast (time wise, not speed.)

Oh, and a true ROW high speed would not work as high speed rails are designed for high speed travel. A ROW would work for an express train, or lightning, I forget what else they may call it. Basically it is a train that travels the same rails, with only major destination stops. It can go a little faster, but not much. Amtrak's High Speed train encounters this problem, it can go faster, but running on non high speed rail only allows it to go so fast with turns and safety. I saw and read Amtrak's Acella proposed build of rails and they would be raised so nothing goes on the track, banked turns, and limited turns. Although High Speed trains are practical, I see a reduced stop and a slightly faster train used on the current tracks prior to any highs peed rails being built.

But people definitely would use it if it was a nice service, that was quick from Manchester Salem Boston and RI. I am always surprised at how many people actually use the buses and trains. If they were improved, updated and expanded, only that many more would use them.