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

[Arlington]

Alas, I misunderstood Arlington's intent. Because the PVTA and Peter Pan Bus Lines serve Amherst rather well, I'm uncertain as to why that town would need more bus service. A bus lane between Amherst and Northampton would be helpful, however.

Picture it this way (and a slight exaggeration): rail service at SPG so awesome that the only place it makes sense to take a bus from AMM is to/from SPG to catch a train.

That is my RAIL goal for SPG, not a real plan of bus service for AMM.

I want SPG-BOS (Amtrak Intercity) to average 90+ mph (requiring peaks of 125mph or more) to vastly outperform the Pike. I want SPG-NHV/STM/NYC to vastly outperform I-91/95. So vastly that Peter Pan will struggle to compete in its AMM-NYC and AMM-BOS runs and cut back to just AMM-SPG (or Palmer).

And Peter Pan will have network and connecting demand of its own such that I don't really expect it to leave the AMM-BOS/NYC markets entirely.

There will continue to be PVTC service to NHT both for the local market and for trips to VT (and onward to Montreal eventually)

So, yes, an AMM-SPG bus can't meet all of AMM's needs, but I want bus-rail (or bus-bus) connections at SPG to dominate on frequency and compete really well on duration--and do do so for every community west of the Athol-Quabbin-Ware meridian (in orange, below, aka the western edge of Worcester county)

 

[George_Apley]

So, is there any feasibility behind this? What you want would require a new ROW between Worcester and Springfield.

 

[Arlington]

People can't resist picking Alternative 6, whether for RUR or the East-West Rail study

The East-West Rail study has a major shortcoming in that it outlines "what it takes" but not "what it costs"

In this case Alternative 6 == 110 to 150mph rail down the middle of the Masspike for its entire length (except for returning to existing station approach tracks in WOR and SPG)

And I can't resist proposing Alternative 5½ which trims things back to the bigger cities. I'd have HSR stop at SPG and ask everyone else to take a bus to get there. I might do the I-90 median for just Weston-Grafton and then maximize the existing ROW WOR-SPG

It is also strange in the East-West study that the Palmer stop comes and goes. Palmer is a great place to put a Park-and-Ride (RTE 128 style) station because getting fast track from Palmer-BOS is a much clearer winner than much-upgrading Palmer-SPG.

 

[DBM]

All this stuff is important and great, but, just as a reminder, here's what we're looking at on the commuter rail lines right now:

Providence-South Station: 70 minutes (ave. of the 2 height-of-rush hour inbounds), 43 miles. 37 mph average
Worcester-South Station: 95 minutes (again, ave.), 43 miles. 27 mph average
Kingston-South Station: 60 minutes (ave.), 35 miles. 35 mph average
Lowell-North Station: 45 minutes (ave.), 25 miles. 33 mph average
Lawrence-North Station: 55 minutes (ave.), 26 miles. 28 mph average

Glacial, pathetic, and almost definition hampering the economic potential of Gateway cities out on the 495-ville (or just beyond) perimeter.

So anything that addresses a high-speed Springfield to Boston mandate, without fixing this glaring decades-long deficiency, is to me dangerously myopic.

(Of course, I don't know--maybe Springfield to Boston will be purposefully tethered somehow to speeding up all the CR lines?)

 

[odurandina]

I was picturing 2 buses: one to PIT and one to AMM (and a whole bus hub at SPG, with spokes to anyplace else in the Berkshires, and even Albany) feeding into Valley Flyer and SPG-BOS rail. By Western I meant "anyplace out there""

w/ the traffic beginning to become absurd, This seems the far more sensible way
to move people and a far more comfortable method of travel.

....here's what we're looking at on the commuter rail lines right now:

Worcester-South Station: 95 minutes (again, ave.), 43 miles. 27 mph average

Glacial, pathetic, and almost definition hampering the economic potential of Gateway cities out on the 495-ville (or just beyond) perimeter......
So anything that addresses a high-speed Springfield to Boston mandate, without fixing this glaring decades-long deficiency, is to me dangerously myopic.

Entice and speed it up.
Any opportunity for food services on board? and, should this line just be Amtrak,
done like the 110mph diesel trains from St Louis to Chicago--
(which i ponder is subsidized in some way by Illinois & Missouri)???

 

[George_Apley]

Glacial, pathetic, and almost definition hampering the economic potential of Gateway cities out on the 495-ville (or just beyond) perimeter.

So anything that addresses a high-speed Springfield to Boston mandate, without fixing this glaring decades-long deficiency, is to me dangerously myopic.

(Of course, I don't know--maybe Springfield to Boston will be purposefully tethered somehow to speeding up all the CR lines?)

This. I don't see how Springfield-Boston happens at all without the whole system getting its due.

 

[Wash]

Improving BOS-SPG is a bone we have to throw Western Mass so they'll vote for more transit spending in metro Boston. Yes, there are more urgent projects that can benefit more people faster, but this is how politics works.

 

[Arlington]

Commutability from WOR and SPG would be a serious win for BOS labor market: housing affordability and employer access to talent (including all the colleges out there)

This is not just a bone to throw to Area Code 413; It is in the direct interests of Boston to be better connected to the other trading centers of New England, for about the same reasons as the Erie Canal made NYC rich.

Somehow it is more plausible when Rhode Island wants to pay to be better connected to Boston--it seems like other people s money. But the justification for connecting to WOR and SPG is even stronger: more people & they pay our sales an income taxes, and we want dibs on the talents they acquired in our schools

If you want to be an economic hub, you need bigger, better-connected hinterlands, and participate in constructing better spokes to draw them to your orbit.

I want to claim, capture & hold the wealth of the CT River Valley. Given CT won't/can't build additional capacity to NYC, us throwing HSR out there is a good way to draw them into our orbit.

 

[Arlington]

... on the commuter rail lines right now:
Providence-South Station: 70 minutes (ave. of the 2 height-of-rush hour inbounds), 43 miles. 37 mph average

Great post. Let's use BOS-PVD as something of a parallel.
Current commuter performance is hampered by slow acceleration and Transit Matters says that if terminal congestion were eliminated at South Station they'd improve the schedule to just 46 minutes!

That'd mean that BOS-PVD would run 3 tiers of service:

• MBTA Today = 70 minutes (to be replaced)
• MBTA Electric = 46 minutes
• Amtrak NER = 40 minutes (Train 171, the 8:15a southbound)
• Amtrak Acela = 35 minutes (I suspect Acela II, with its lighter weight, might trim a minute or two more)

So suggestion 1 is to think of this more like Amtrak (indeed this is an "Amtrak" thread), and since there are unlikely to be many stops west of Framingham, it really will NOT be making nearly as many stops per mile as PVD-BOS does, and that's going to help performance. Amtrak Virginia stops are about 30~60 miles apart, so by that standard you'd stick with the Amtrak stops we have (SPG-WOR-FRA-BBY-BOS) and resist even a Palmer park-and-ride.*

Here are some real-and-possible for BOS-SPG (98 rail miles today)

• Amtrak LSL = 148 minutes / 2h28
• Bus on Pike = 120 - 150 min / 2h00 to 2h30
• EWRS Alt3 = 100 - 120 min / 1h40 to 2h00 (90 mph top speed)
• EWRS Alt5 = 85 - 105 min / 1h25 to 1h45 (110 mph top speed)
• EWRS Alt6 = 80 - 100 min / 1h20 to 1h40 (150 mph top speed)

To me, an HOV lane on the pike (or dynamic tolling) should be included as a way of ensuring that BOS-SPG buses never get stuck in traffic--and they would let us "do" frequent 2 hour service in a signals-before-concrete implementation. If we do dynamic tolling any extra $ should be lockboxed to fund rail (or rebuilding the pike with a clear median for rail, anyway)

Think of:
Alternative 3 = the best you can do within the existing CSX-owned alignment
Alternative 4 = the best you can do next to the existing CSX-owned alignment
Alternative 5 = the best you can do slightly outside the existing CSX-owned alignment
Alternative 6 = using the Pike Weston-Worcester"offramp" and Worcester"onramp" to Palmer

Since they really haven't considered costs yet, and because it is hard to tell the difference between Alternative 5 and Alternative 6, that's why I think you'll get some kind of Alternative 5½ which trades back and forth between CSX and the Pike depending on bang-for-buck.

*I think the question of a Palmer Park and Ride really depends on whether it turns out to be a place we'd rather the train be going fast through (Alternative 6 wants to do 80 to 110 mph on the Pike through Palmer) or whether it'd be slowing for a curve anyway (Alternative 4 on CSX). If it costs too much to connect at Palmer, I think we're better off speeding and intensifying service at SPG.

 

[whighlander]

Great post. Let's use BOS-PVD as something of a parallel.
Current commuter performance is hampered by slow acceleration and Transit Matters says that if terminal congestion were eliminated at South Station they'd improve the schedule to just 46 minutes!

That'd mean that BOS-PVD would run 3 tiers of service:

• MBTA Today = 70 minutes (to be replaced)
• MBTA Electric = 46 minutes
• Amtrak NER = 40 minutes (Train 171, the 8:15a southbound)
• Amtrak Acela = 35 minutes (I suspect Acela II, with its lighter weight, might trim a minute or two more)

So suggestion 1 is to think of this more like Amtrak (indeed this is an "Amtrak" thread), and since there are unlikely to be many stops west of Framingham, it really will NOT be making nearly as many stops per mile as PVD-BOS does, and that's going to help performance. Amtrak Virginia stops are about 30~60 miles apart, so by that standard you'd stick with the Amtrak stops we have (SPG-WOR-FRA-BBY-BOS) and resist even a Palmer park-and-ride.*

Here are some real-and-possible for BOS-SPG (98 rail miles today)

• Amtrak LSL = 148 minutes / 2h28
• Bus on Pike = 120 - 150 min / 2h00 to 2h30
• EWRS Alt3 = 100 - 120 min / 1h40 to 2h00 (90 mph top speed)
• EWRS Alt5 = 85 - 105 min / 1h25 to 1h45 (110 mph top speed)
• EWRS Alt6 = 80 - 100 min / 1h20 to 1h40 (150 mph top speed)

To me, an HOV lane on the pike (or dynamic tolling) should be included as a way of ensuring that BOS-SPG buses never get stuck in traffic--and they would let us "do" frequent 2 hour service in a signals-before-concrete implementation. If we do dynamic tolling any extra $ should be lockboxed to fund rail (or rebuilding the pike with a clear median for rail, anyway)

Think of:
Alternative 3 = the best you can do within the existing CSX-owned alignment
Alternative 4 = the best you can do next to the existing CSX-owned alignment
Alternative 5 = the best you can do slightly outside the existing CSX-owned alignment
Alternative 6 = using the Pike Weston-Worcester"offramp" and Worcester"onramp" to Palmer

Since they really haven't considered costs yet, and because it is hard to tell the difference between Alternative 5 and Alternative 6, that's why I think you'll get some kind of Alternative 5½ which trades back and forth between CSX and the Pike depending on bang-for-buck.

*I think the question of a Palmer Park and Ride really depends on whether it turns out to be a place we'd rather the train be going fast through (Alternative 6 wants to do 80 to 110 mph on the Pike through Palmer) or whether it'd be slowing for a curve anyway (Alternative 4 on CSX). If it costs too much to connect at Palmer, I think we're better off speeding and intensifying service at SPG.

Arlington -- Springfield is just too far unless you can deliver terminal to terminal in 60 minutes or less
that in turn would translate in about 90 minutes door to door

You can do 90 minutes door to door over a huge swath of Greater Boston including Southern New Hampshire

As for someone's comments about the latent, untapped talent in the CT River Valley -- I think the "move" of a Springfield heavy weight -- Mass Mutual to the Boston Seaport tell you all you need to know

 

[Arlington]

Arlington -- Springfield is just too far unless you can deliver terminal to terminal in 60 minutes or less
that in turn would translate in about 90 minutes door to door

There does have to be a definition of "too far" (or too long) applied here, and I agree that there is a magic associated with 30, 60, 90, 120 thinking. Lots of commuter railroads run 90 minute runs where most of the ridership appears only inside the 60-minute boundary.

But while I'm trying to knit the labor markets together, I'm not proposing commuter rail. This is New England Intercity Rail.

First, consider the kind of work
- There are 10,000 supercommuter weirdos. I'd hope to serve them, [EDIT: Whittle points out that that number is a mix of full and part-time commuters]
Consider [EDIT] (as noted above) the 1/wk "facetime" or "client meeting" worker
- Field workers (territory sales/support reps)
- Working from a "second home" (having sold the city house)
- MassMutual people who might ping back and forth
- Attorneys who might cover courts in SPG and WOR

Second, acknowledge some key 2h30 Intercity train markets that "kinda" work today:
a) The Downeaster does "well enough" at 2h30 from POR to BON (or did before BRU service caused it to run too many empty miles)
b) Amtrak Virginia does very well at 2h30 --which is where both Richmond and Charlottesville are from DC
c) NCR/BWI/BAL to NYP also does well making PG/Arundel/Howard/Baltimore the "affordable" NEC counties to actually live in and still get to NYC often.
d) Same kinda goes for New Haven, at 2h30 (ish) by either MNRR or Amtrak from NYC
d) Amtrak really, really wants to get to a predictable 2h30 WAS-NYP

So, already, we should have 3 to 5 trains per day SPG-BOS for about the same reason that (a) and (b) do, but we dropped them more because on-time-performance totally stunk (and still does for the LSL)

Third, consider how powerful "under two hours"
Both NNEPRA (as the Downeaster sponsor) and VA DRPT (as Amtrak Virginia's sponsor) have studies showing that that 2 hours would be significantly more compelling than 2h30.

Fourth, consider the competition
Yes, I want SPG to be "objectively" close to BOS, but the train being "subjectively closer" (than driving) is, well, progress at making them closer of the kind that we haven't aspired to since the Pike opened.

 

[whittle]

First, consider the kind of work
- There are 10,000 supercommuter weirdos. I'd hope to serve them, but they're not my target
Consider instead (as noted above) the 1/wk "facetime" or "client meeting" worker
- Field workers (territory sales/support reps)
- Working from a "second home" (having sold the city house)
- MassMutual people who might ping back and forth
- Attorneys who might cover courts in SPG and WOR

The 10,000 number you refer to includes part time commuters.

 

[Arlington]

The 10,000 number you refer to includes part time commuters.

Thanks! Edited. I don't think it changes the point too much. The goal of the train would be to actually increase that number by having more people from Greater Worcester and 413 feel that participating in the BOS market is more doable more often.

 

[Arlington]

• Bad:
  • the AM schedule was heavily tuned toward in-bound commuters,​

Thank you for a nice commute-occasionally-by-rail illustration.

I'm expecting service and demand to be reasonably bi-directional: WOR people going CT/NY, or at least frequent enough that they will have to run a balanced schedule both ways.

It also reminds me that by 2035 (or certainly within our "rail plan time horizon) autonomous vehicles will be competent-enough on the MassPike that supercommuters will likely be able to work in their car--but induced demand will likely cause considerably more traffic

So part of the goal for SPG-BOS service has got to be to "out-compete" autonomous vehicles, which I think leads us back to needing to achieve much higher speeds than driving.

If AVs do crush he Pike with supercommuters working in their cars, is that something we want to encourage (in the name of "affordability") or discourage (with congestion tolling).

My answer would be congestion tolling where the proceeds are lockboxed to first getting higher-speed rail and only then widening the pike (particularly between I-84 and 495)

 

[whighlander]

Thank you for a nice commute-occasionally-by-rail illustration.

I'm expecting service and demand to be reasonably bi-directional: WOR people going CT/NY, or at least frequent enough that they will have to run a balanced schedule both ways.

It also reminds me that by 2035 (or certainly within our "rail plan time horizon) autonomous vehicles will be competent-enough on the MassPike that supercommuters will likely be able to work in their car--but induced demand will likely cause considerably more traffic

So part of the goal for SPG-BOS service has got to be to "out-compete" autonomous vehicles, which I think leads us back to needing to achieve much higher speeds than driving.

If AVs do crush he Pike with supercommuters working in their cars, is that something we want to encourage (in the name of "affordability") or discourage (with congestion tolling).

My answer would be congestion tolling where the proceeds are lockboxed to first getting higher-speed rail and only then widening the pike (particularly between I-84 and 495)

Arlington -- If say by 2030 there are significant numbers of AV's on the Pike -- there need to be AV only lanes where the speed and spacing between vehicles could be significantly different

I think it is now fairly conclusive that AV's operating autonomously or linked -- all under limited access highway circumstances will be safe enough to allow essentially train-like behavior allowing high speeds and close spacing -- BUT only if non AV's are excluded. This will be especially true for long-haul trucks which can become driver-less very soon

 

[Arlington]

Arlington -- If say by 2030 there are significant numbers of AV's on the Pike -- there need to be AV only lanes where the speed and spacing between vehicles could be significantly different

I think I agree. And given that trains made up of AVs will be safer and more fuel efficient (drafting off the car(s) ahead) it is clear to me that we face an infrastructure bill coming up to rebuild the MassPike to maximize the SPG-WOR-BOS connectivity that I think is needed.

The MassPike seems like it is going to need 2 tiers of road service and rail down the middle (so you can safely/efficiently do 110mph+ speeds)

It is unclear to me what the 2 tiers of road will be

• AV vs Non?
• Small (cars) vs Big (truck) (and is an trainline of AVs "big"?)
• SOV vs HOV (where HOV = Bus & trainline?)

But moving passenger rail to the median of the Pike will also permit/allow more investment in better double-stack freight to carry things that trucks now carry.

 

[Equilibria]

But moving passenger rail to the median of the Pike will also permit/allow more investment in better double-stack freight to carry things that trucks now carry.

It also guarantees that stations will be as expensive as possible to build and that they'll be farther from the active side of the corridor.

 

[Arlington]

It also guarantees that stations will be as expensive as possible to build and that they'll be farther from the active side of the corridor.

Please reference the study. What stations are you picturing building? You seem to be picturing RUR stops west of FRA, and I don't think anybody is proposing that, particularly if the rail is laid inside the MassPike row.

There's only one new station proposed in the whole thing (at Palmer) and only then in the *non* MassPike (slower) options (Alts 1-4)

Palmer is not part Alternatives 5 & 6 (the "Higher" and "High" speed options) are literally just 4 stops at existing stations in SPG-WOR-BBY-BOS . The point is that once you've built a straight and fast right of way, you're better served operating at stations 40 miles apart and not stopping right in the middle. The job of the MassPike running going fast between the hubs.

People who would have driven to Palmer (if the train were slow) would be better served driving to SPG or WOR once the train is fast.

(True, Alt 6 continues out MassPike to Blandford and Lee service plazas as stops, but it could easily duck to one side or the other of the ROW at those points. Nowhere would it be a "Dan Ryan Red Line" type disaster)

 

[cden4]

I personally get car-sick when I try to read or do something (as a passenger) in stop-and-go-traffic, so I suspect that for many people, working in an autonomous car won't be particularly viable. A train is a much smoother and more comfortable ride.

 

[FK4]

I personally get car-sick when I try to read or do something (as a passenger) in stop-and-go-traffic, so I suspect that for many people, working in an autonomous car won't be particularly viable. A train is a much smoother and more comfortable ride.

Me too.