MassDOT Rail: Springfield Hub (East-West, NNERI, Berkshires, CT-Valley-VT-Quebec)

393b40

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
778
Well, Western MA gets almost no benefit from NSRL, so even if it is a much better use of money, it still is a bad deal from their point of view.
They get indirect benefit from continuing or increased economic output in Boston. Western MA is basically dependent on Eastern MA but they refuse to admit it.
 

Ruairi

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
458
Reaction score
373
They get indirect benefit from continuing or increased economic output in Boston. Western MA is basically dependent on Eastern MA but they refuse to admit it.
With covid increasing the rate of work from home, if western Mass had decent rail connections to Boston or NYC it would be far less dependent on eastern MA.
Controversial opinion here but I think the state should be looking to get good public transit out to central and western MA before projects like NSRL. It hurts my head that Worcester, Springfield, and Pittsfield aren't easily accessible by train.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
With covid increasing the rate of work from home, if western Mass had decent rail connections to Boston or NYC it would be far less dependent on eastern MA.
Controversial opinion here but I think the state should be looking to get good public transit out to central and western MA before projects like NSRL. It hurts my head that Worcester, Springfield, and Pittsfield aren't easily accessible by train.
Repeating the simple economics from earlier:

By their own projections, the E-W for $2.4-$4.6 Billion would carry between 762-1,285 riders per day.

The $2.28 billion GLX is projected at 45,000 riders per day.

And the Western part of the Commonwealth foams at the mouth about $15 Billion for the NSRL?????? . The NSRL would benefit a 50+ multiple commuters for 3-4 times the cost of the E-W. The comparative economic benefits are not in the same universe.

Per capita, those who live in the Western part of the Commonwealth are not 15 times more valuable than those that live in the Greater Boston area. Honestly, if the E-W gets $2.4-$4.6 billion to benefit 762-1,285 riders per day, atthe expense of the NSRL, then the Eastern Mass should just separate from the Commonwealth. Let's see who benefits off of whom more.
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
.....don't get me wrong, I love the Western part of the Commonwealth. The Berkshires are great and my son is a hard working Junior at UMass Amherst. I have nothing against the Western part.

But there are more kids in his quad than would be daily passengers on this $2.4-$4.6 billion boondoggle.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
3,340
Repeating the simple economics from earlier:

By their own projections, the E-W for $2.4-$4.6 Billion would carry between 762-1,285 riders per day.

The $2.28 billion GLX is projected at 45,000 riders per day.

And the Western part of the Commonwealth foams at the mouth about $15 Billion for the NSRL?????? . The NSRL would benefit a 50+ multiple commuters for 3-4 times the cost of the E-W. The comparative economic benefits are not in the same universe.

Per capita, those who live in the Western part of the Commonwealth are not 15 times more valuable than those that live in the Greater Boston area. Honestly, if the E-W gets $2.4-$4.6 billion to benefit 762-1,285 riders per day, atthe expense of the NSRL, then the Eastern Mass should just separate from the Commonwealth. Let's see who benefits off of whom more.
...and every time you cite these stats as gospel, I need to remind:

THESE BOOKS ARE COOKED.


Seriously...throwing out multiple-times proven misinformation as a counterpoint does less than nothing to advance the discourse. Don't use malarkey math to hang a value judgement on Western MA in broad strokes. Either use something that's actually survived a thorough multi-state vetting, like the NNEIRI study stats linked multiple times on this thread and within the last page...you know, the one you willfully ignore every time you soapbox like this about Western MA's undeservingness. Or aim the bile correctly at the MassDOT garbage chute that fed such bullshit into E-W's intake nozzle so that the garbage-out results render such sweeping judgement on Western MA's deservingness, and ask why we should have to put up with this kind of rancid politics for our $1M in taxpayer-subsidized study excursions.

No one--LEAST of all out of the foul-smelling methodology laid bare in front of us--is forcing you to take the garbage-out byproduct as gospel. But that's exactly what you're doing every time you crow about how this is sheer validation of Western MA's worthlessness. It does a totes awesome job carrying Baker's water. Is that what you truly aim to do harping on this garbage-sourced conclusion over and over in this thread?

How about we try to figure out how to reconcile the glaring differences between the multi-state study that showed something brought to the table and the tankapalooza effort that takes stuff off the table, for something a little more productive than just finger-pointing?
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
1,402
I'm going to quote F-Lines synopsis from up thread that shows costs 1/4 to 1/2 of the Pollack study and ridership about double:
This is why we'd urge @shmessy to not use Pollack's numbers--they're making cost per rider look about 5x to 10x what NNERI did.
One way that East-West screwed things up was by drawing a rail line between SPG and PIT (which is silly-expensive considering that we *have* a reliable 70mph right of way out there: MassPike)


---> https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/05/24/NNEIRI_StudySummary.pdf <---

Or...you can build NNEIRI like we partnered on with our neighbors CT and VT not 2 years before this study, and net a Preferred Alternative's build of:
  • 429,000 annual riders on the Inland Route, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Worcester-Boston
  • ...AND 343,000 annual riders on the enhanced Montrealer NHV-HFD-SPG with cross-tix transfers @ SPG via Inland slots from Boston
  • ...AND 103,000 annual riders on the Boston-Montreal direct with cross-tix transfers @ SPG via Inland slots from NHV-HFD
...at a cost of:
  • $554-660M capital for just the Inland Route, at $33M annual ops costs - $18M annual revenue = $15M annual subsidy
  • $591-614M capital for just the BOS-MTL route, at $23M annual ops costs - $12M annual revenue = $11M annual subsidy
  • $1.1B-1.2B for the full SPG hub/spokes package operating in-tandem (incl. the timed cross-tix transfers) as a uni-build/uni-subsidy effort, at $56M annual ops cost - $30M annual revenue = $26M annual subsidy
...keeping in mind that ConnDOT and VTrans are going to be picking up some minority tab of the subsidy for their route miles ops.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
I'm going to quote F-Lines synopsis from up thread that shows costs 1/4 to 1/2 of the Pollack study and ridership about double:
This is why we'd urge @shmessy to not use Pollack's numbers--they're making cost per rider look about 5x to 10x what NNERI did.
One way that East-West screwed things up was by drawing a rail line between SPG and PIT (which is silly-expensive considering that we *have* a reliable 70mph right of way out there: MassPike)
Looking at the high end of F-Line’s NNERI passenger ANNUAL numbers (all 3 parts) comes out to 875,000. A daily average of 2,397 passengers. Am I misreading that?

And that would cost $1.1-$1.2 billion plus a net $52 million per year from the state (which works out to a continuing expense picked up by the state of $59.43 per passenger trip). Is this correct?
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
3,340
Looking at the high end of F-Line’s NNERI passenger ANNUAL numbers (all 3 parts) comes out to 875,000. A daily average of 2,397 passengers. Am I misreading that?
Yes...that's correct. 2397 between Boston and Springfield...not all the way to Pittsfield which isn't even a Phase II glint in NNEIRI's eye. If you want to do Pittsfield rail the sane way by partnering with NYSDOT on an Albany study, then doing the same SPG Hub timing tricks to enable any train from the non-prevailing (in this case, North-South) direction to do cross-tix timed transfer @ Springfield Union...then add all due gratuity on the top of those numbers because you'll also be tapping some currently hard-to-reach pairings like Hartford-Albany in the process. Which East-West totally ignores.

We build to Springfield, treat it with all the hub-linked schedule timing, and the package does DOUBLE the daily ridership. You did not misread that. That was a tri-state study with numbers affirmed by the very same MassDOT, as well as ConnDOT and VTrans. This is how no-good bad shit-awful a tank job East-West is. It lost half the ridership by staking itself to utter garbage metrics on source of demand. Who the fuck goes through Springfield and ignores Connecticut??? Baker's funny-math arsonists: that's who.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
1,402
Looking at the high end of F-Line’s NNERI passenger ANNUAL numbers (all 3 parts) comes out to 875,000. A daily average of 2,397 passengers. Am I misreading that?
That sounds right, and I compared it to (what you found to be) Pollack's 762-1,285 riders per day.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
Yes...that's correct. 2397 between Boston and Springfield...not all the way to Pittsfield which isn't even a Phase II glint in NNEIRI's eye. If you want to do Pittsfield rail the sane way by partnering with NYSDOT on an Albany study, then doing the same SPG Hub timing tricks to enable any train from the non-prevailing (in this case, North-South) direction to do cross-tix timed transfer @ Springfield Union...then add all due gratuity on the top of those numbers because you'll also be tapping some currently hard-to-reach pairings like Hartford-Albany in the process. Which East-West totally ignores.

We build to Springfield, treat it with all the hub-linked schedule timing, and the package does DOUBLE the daily ridership. You did not misread that. That was a tri-state study with numbers affirmed by the very same MassDOT, as well as ConnDOT and VTrans. This is how no-good bad shit-awful a tank job East-West is. It lost half the ridership by staking itself to utter garbage metrics on source of demand. Who the fuck goes through Springfield and ignores Connecticut??? Baker's funny-math arsonists: that's who.
So what you are talking about is 875,000 annual riders included CT, VT and the Montrealer. And is to cost $1.1-1.2 billion plus $59.43 per passenger trip for the state for that 2,397 per day ridership. Is that right?
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
That sounds right, and I compared it to (what you found to be) Pollack's 762-1,285 riders per day.
Fine, I already threw out the MassDot numbers and assume it is wrong also for arguments sake. I then even adopted F-Line’s NNERI numbers and, economically...... they suck only a little less. Kind of like going from driving a Corvair to driving a Yugo. I’m not an engineer so I’ll never understand which train switch does which north-east pile driver whatever...... but I know economics. And those NNERI economics don’t work at all.

It all comes down to- does this make any economic sense? Compared to GLX, B-R Connector, NSRL?
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
3,340
So what you are talking about 875,000 annual riders included CT, VT and the Montrealer. And is to cost $1.1-1.2 billion plus $59.43 per passenger trip for the state for that 2,397 per day ridership. Is that right?
Yes.

And again...if you do the Berkshires the right way with joint NYSDOT study for BOS-ALB, you keep that top-line appropriately robust. Because now you're tapping cross-transfer audiences between the Capitol regions of both CT & NY, as well as enabling further westward "Lake Shore-ing" lash-up opportunities buried in at almost no extra ops cost like adding a BOS-ALB-TOR leg to the Maple Leaf or many other such route combos. As Phase II'ing goes over the Berkshires, Springfield and Albany are kindred spirits at playing hubb'ing tinker toys to increase their demand footprint.

So of course...study a line that dead-ends 50 desolate extra miles in the 44K-population metropolis of Pittsfield! Value capture...how does it fucking work, Charlie?
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
3,340
Fine, I already threw out the MassDot numbers and assume it is wrong also for arguments sake. I then even adopted F-Line’s NNERI numbers and, economically...... they suck only a little less. Kind of like going from driving a Corvair to driving a Yugo. I’m not an engineer so I’ll never understand which train switch does which north-east pile driver whatever...... but I know economics. And those NNERI economics don’t work at all.

It all comes down to- does this make any economic sense? Compared to GLX, B-R Connector, NSRL?
And you're entitled to that opinion. But would it have killed you to base that on the more accurate numbers that have REPEATEDLY been cited and re-cited here instead of dry-humping one Pollack soundbite from E-W for extra drama? Again and again, until literally being boxed into a corner about how bullshit those numbers are as a cite? It does not escape notice that leaning hard on the worst-case numbers aids in making a worst-case point sound like a more dramatic mic drop. That's a problem when the worst-case numbers are disproven bunk.

Nobody's saying there aren't shades of grey here to parse in the value proposition. But it was getting to be a bit much...the whole, "Yeah, the study was a giant vat of lies...except when it underscored MY point" -level cherry-picking of data cites. No...the study is a giant vat of lies top- and bottom-lines. Find something better-sourced to underscore thy point, or this discourse is going nowhere fast.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
Yes.

And again...if you do the Berkshires the right way with joint NYSDOT study for BOS-ALB, you keep that top-line appropriately robust. Because now you're tapping cross-transfer audiences between the Capitol regions of both CT & NY, as well as enabling further westward "Lake Shore-ing" lash-up opportunities buried in at almost no extra ops cost like adding a BOS-ALB-TOR leg to the Maple Leaf or many other such route combos. As Phase II'ing goes over the Berkshires, Springfield and Albany are kindred spirits at playing hubb'ing tinker toys to increase their demand footprint.

So of course...study a line that dead-ends 50 desolate extra miles in the 44K-population metropolis of Pittsfield! Value capture...how does it fucking work, Charlie?
I can’t see any of it working economically until you show the total passenger numbers and how much it costs. This is all just a lot of typing until we see the numbers. What is the ridership and what is the cost. Add in the AlbanyToronto, etc. Thrown away MassDot was looking at 762-~1,400 per day for $2.4-4.6 billion. Then you put forth the NNERI full spoke of 2,397 for $1.1-1.2 billion plus $52 million per year. Now you are mentioning another option. What’s the cost of that one?
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
And you're entitled to that opinion. But would it have killed you to base that on the more accurate numbers that have REPEATEDLY been cited and re-cited here instead of dry-humping one Pollack soundbite from E-W for extra drama? Again and again, until literally being boxed into a corner about how bullshit those numbers are as a cite? It does not escape notice that leaning hard on the worst-case numbers aids in making a worst-case point sound like a more dramatic mic drop. That's a problem when the worst-case numbers are disproven bunk.

Nobody's saying there aren't shades of grey here to parse in the value proposition. But it was getting to be a bit much...the whole, "Yeah, the study was a giant vat of lies...except when it underscored MY point" -level cherry-picking of data cites. No...the study is a giant vat of lies top- and bottom-lines. Find something better-sourced to underscore thy point, or this discourse is going nowhere fast.
I threw away talking about the MassDot numbers several posts ago. Why linger on that when I assumed you were right and then directly used YOUR NNERI numbers with the full spoke option. 875k annually $1.1-1.2 billion plus $52 million per year net cost after passenger revenue. How is that not clear? Now you want to go back and argue the MassDot numbers for some reason?
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
3,340
I then directly used YOUR NNERI numbers with the full spoke option.
"MY" numbers? Nice try.

You were provided...multiple times...with all the official study links. The Exec. Summary, and the websites to all of the NNEIRI documentation. They're sourced. Nobody pulled them out of their own arse. You are more than free to refute any of that as part of your argument. You're not free to willfully and repeatedly ignore that they exist until the shouting gets tiresome. Don't now mistake cloaking the existence of those numbers in ad hominems as advancing the argument any less shrilly.

Nobody is preventing you from making an honest data-driven argument from official sources to underscore your point. You have the numbers in front of you. Don't blame someone else for your own not wanting to debate in good faith.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
1,612
"MY" numbers? Nice try.

You were provided...multiple times...with all the official study links. The Exec. Summary, and the websites to all of the NNEIRI documentation. They're sourced. Nobody pulled them out of their own arse. You are more than free to refute any of that as part of your argument. You're not free to willfully and repeatedly ignore that they exist until the shouting gets tiresome. Don't now mistake cloaking the existence of those numbers in ad hominems as advancing the argument any less shrilly.

Nobody is preventing you from making an honest data-driven argument from official sources to underscore your point. You have the numbers in front of you. Don't blame someone else for your own not wanting to debate in good faith.
Jeezus, the numbers you were REFERRING TO (“....or you can build NNEIRI like we partnered on.....”) in your post on NNERI. Stop it. What’s so hard about hard numerical data? I even took it on faith to throw out what you said were cooked MassDot numbers. Fine. I then looked at the NNERI you referenced and calculated from the full spoke option. What more do you need? All that is asked is what is the passenger numbers and the cost. That is it. Nothing fancy. The numbers are the only way to judge relative value compared to other options that are vying for limited state investment options.
 

Top