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

Last Friday, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Intercity Rail Governance White Paper.

I'm not sure if these images have been posted in this thread before, but these are the 3 East-West rail alternatives still being considered:

Alternative 3
alt 3.PNG


Alternative 4
alt 4.PNG


Alternative 4/5 Hybrid
alt 4 & 5 hybrid.PNG


Alternative 4/5 Hybrid Curve Realignments
alt 4 & 5 hybrid curve realignments.PNG

(This image is from the East/West Rail Final Report, not the report released on 11/12)
 
here's another question.
Why would these trains stop at Landsdowne and backbay? It's not commuter rail and going straight from Framingham to South Station would shave time off the journey. Take the t to backbay or Fenway if that's where you want to go.
 
Knowing this board, other people will nerd out to my findings looking at timetables:

The fastest alternative (Alternative 4/5 Hybrid) has travel times from Boston to Pittsfield as 2:49. Under this scenario, with no other infrastructure improvements elsewhere, travel times from Boston via the Lake Shore Limited:
  • Albany: 4:20 (down from 5:20)
  • Schenectady: 5:43 w/ 0:55 layover in Albany. 4:53 with layover shortened to 0:05 (down from 6:43)
  • Utica: 6:59 w/ long layover or 6:09 w/ short layover (down from 7:59)
  • Syracuse: 8:02 w/ long layover or 7:12 w/ short layover (down from 9:02)
  • Rochester: 9:22 w/ long layover or 8:32 w/ short layover (down from 10:22)
  • Buffalo: 10:22 w/ long layover or 9:32 w/ short layover (down from 11:22)
 
Ruairi said:
here's another question.
Why would these trains stop at Landsdowne and backbay? It's not commuter rail and going straight from Framingham to South Station would shave time off the journey. Take the t to backbay or Fenway if that's where you want to go.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t these trains stop at Back Bay? Even all Lake Shore Limited trains stop at Back Bay and it’s the third highest ridership stop in the state on the LSL, ahead of Pittsfield, Worcester, and Framingham.

In the case of the Lake Shore Limited, 1,800 passengers used Framingham in 2019 and 9,200 passengers used Back Bay. If you were to cut one of these stations from service, wouldn’t it make more sense to cut the much lower ridership Framingham and say “Take the t (Commuter Rail) to Framingham if that's where you want to go,” rather than saying that about the significantly higher ridership Back Bay stop?
 
bigeman312 said:
Why wouldn’t these trains stop at Back Bay? Even all Lake Shore Limited trains stop at Back Bay and it’s the third highest ridership stop in the state on the LSL, ahead of Pittsfield, Worcester, and Framingham.

In the case of the Lake Shore Limited, 1,800 passengers used Framingham in 2019 and 9,200 passengers used Back Bay. If you were to cut one of these stations from service, wouldn’t it make more sense to cut the much lower ridership Framingham and say “Take the t (Commuter Rail) to Framingham if that's where you want to go,” rather than saying that about the significantly higher ridership Back Bay stop?
Click to expand...
It just seems bizarre to me to have three stations within walking distance on a regional rail line. It takes 20 mins to walk from south station to back bay.
Landsdowne is only a 20 min walk from back bay.
And what happens when West station opens? Will it stop four times inside 128?
I guess its the inclusion fo the Fenway stop that's confusing me more than anything. Is it to cater for Baseball?
 
Ruairi said:
It just seems bizarre to me to have three stations within walking distance on a regional rail line. It takes 20 mins to walk from south station to back bay.
Landsdowne is only a 20 min walk from back bay.
And what happens when West station opens? Will it stop four times inside 128?
I guess its the inclusion fo the Fenway stop that's confusing me more than anything. Is it to cater for Baseball?
Click to expand...

Ridership should lead the way on these decisions. If the stops are oversaturated, ridership would reflect that.

Each stop has a unique individual circumstance. I live in JP and use Back Bay frequently to transfer from the Orange Line to the Commuter Rail (and even for the Lake Shore Limited on occasion). Going to South Station is prohibitively more difficult, especially with luggage. That's true not just for trips to/from JP, but also Fenway, Roxbury, the South End, Back Bay, Charlestown, Medford, Malden, etc.

It’s possible that something similar could be said for those using Lansdowne Station or a future West Station.

By letting rider behavior lead the way, we can see what stops are important. For all Amtrak lines serving South Station, this includes Back Bay.
 
bigeman312 said:
Ridership should lead the way on these decisions. If the stops are oversaturated, ridership would reflect that.

Each stop has a unique individual circumstance. I live in JP and use Back Bay frequently to transfer from the Orange Line to the Commuter Rail (and even for the Lake Shore Limited on occasion). Going to South Station is prohibitively more difficult, especially with luggage. That's true not just for trips to/from JP, but also Fenway, Roxbury, the South End, Back Bay, Charlestown, Medford, Malden, etc.

It’s possible that something similar could be said for those using Lansdowne Station or a future West Station.

By letting rider behavior lead the way, we can see what stops are important. For all Amtrak lines serving South Station, this includes Back Bay.
Click to expand...
by that rationale, you could put eight stops inside 128 and they'd all be busier than Chester.
TBH, I didn't grow up here. I've only lived in America for 12 years but I can't for the life of me figure out how we go about rail.
Lets spend a fortune to get a direct rail link to Pittsfield but it's still slower than driving? Makes no sense to me.
Put all the money in to high speed rail that links Albany, Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester, Framingham and Boston. Then invest in local rail to get passengers to those regional stations. Electrify it all and make rail travel the most popular form of travel. Don't settle for a glorified commuter rail going 50mph.
Anyway, I'm clearly being a debbie downer here so I'll let it be. :)
 
Ruairi said:
by that rationale, you could put eight stops inside 128 and they'd all be busier than Chester.
TBH, I didn't grow up here. I've only lived in America for 12 years but I can't for the life of me figure out how we go about rail.
Lets spend a fortune to get a direct rail link to Pittsfield but it's still slower than driving? Makes no sense to me.
Put all the money in to high speed rail that links Albany, Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester, Framingham and Boston. Then invest in local rail to get passengers to those regional stations. Electrify it all and make rail travel the most popular form of travel. Don't settle for a glorified commuter rail going 50mph.
Anyway, I'm clearly being a debbie downer here so I'll let it be. :)
Click to expand...

You do have a point though even though I know you are being tongue-in-cheek. A lot of times a stop (Chester is a perfect example) is added for political reasons or because something looks good on a map, rather than it being because it’s a service that people will use.

I would guarantee you that this exact same line with an either/or between Back Bay Station or Chester Station being a stop on the line would have higher ridership with Back Bay than Chester.

For political reasons, such as to get a district’s representative on board with funding a project, investments are made that are significantly worse on a cost/rider basis (cough SCR cough) than much higher ROI projects in urban settings that get passed over.

That likely isn’t unique to USA, but it certainly isn’t how transit planning is pursued everywhere.
 
Ruairi said:
Put all the money in to high speed rail that links Albany, Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester, Framingham and Boston. Then invest in local rail to get passengers to those regional stations. Electrify it all and make rail travel the most popular form of travel. Don't settle for a glorified commuter rail going 50mph.
Click to expand...

Electrified HSR between Boston and Springfield/Pittsfield/Albany would be awesome, but seeing as how the HSR ROW alongside the Pike was going to be ~$25 billion, I don't think it'll ever happen.
 
MrDee12345 said:
I realize it would require working with NY, but wouldn't extending the service all the way to Albany be something they should consider?
Click to expand...
The Berkshires are a hard slog by rail (expensive to upgrade, difficult to operate) and relatively empty of on-line demand, so it is really hard to get $/passenger numbers to justify capital improvements going west of SPG.

vs: Buses and 4 rubber tires are really good at going a sustained 75mph while climbing up and down on the grades of the MassPike (which are impossibly steep if you're a train with all your traction on about 8 dimes' worth of metal-on-metal) SPG ALB by Bus would provide frequent service at average speeds higher than a train would ever deliver at any reasonable price tag.

vs: Trains are really good going north and south along the Hudson. Which is why Mass is partnering with NY on the Berkshire Flyer as a small extension to a train that runs on a flat and fast route to NYC.

cubalibre said:
Linking the two capitals of the two most populous states in the northeast with frequent rail service by cooperating on the remaining 35 odd miles? That would make too much sense.
Click to expand...
It actually does not make sense. Capitals are not all that good at aggregating regional demand, just ask Montpelier and Augusta how well they serve as a hub for VT or Maine. NY's hub is NYC, not ALB. Nor other than being capitals is there any special economic or social benefit to connect them: there isn't a market for "I lobbied in Albany in the Morning and lobbied in Boston in the afternoon" kind of synergies. (Compared with "I work in NYC and vacate or educated in the Berkshires")
 
bigeman312 said:
Knowing this board, other people will nerd out to my findings looking at timetables:

The fastest alternative (Alternative 4/5 Hybrid) has travel times from Boston to Pittsfield as 2:49. Under this scenario, with no other infrastructure improvements elsewhere, travel times from Boston via the Lake Shore Limited:
  • Albany: 4:20 (down from 5:20)
  • Schenectady: 5:43 w/ 0:55 layover in Albany. 4:53 with layover shortened to 0:05 (down from 6:43)
  • Utica: 6:59 w/ long layover or 6:09 w/ short layover (down from 7:59)
  • Syracuse: 8:02 w/ long layover or 7:12 w/ short layover (down from 9:02)
  • Rochester: 9:22 w/ long layover or 8:32 w/ short layover (down from 10:22)
  • Buffalo: 10:22 w/ long layover or 9:32 w/ short layover (down from 11:22)
Click to expand...
Ok, now compare to Greyhound

BOS-ALB is *today* 4:15 (1:05 minutes faster than train, 5 minutes faster than the future train) with ZERO capital expense or operating subsidy on Greyhound from SS to ALB bus terminal.
BOS-SYR could be 7:00 with ZERO capital expense if there was a bus' worth of demand (or a small operating subsidy)
BOS-BUF is about 8 hours of drive time. Still way better than 10:22 on the train.

Virginia, the other great state and adding intrastate rail service, has realized that rail is not the answer to connecting their state to economic opportunity on long-and-thin routes, nor when they could run "for free" on uncongested interstates. And in a move that I'd recommend to MassDOT, Virginia is overlaying its Amtrak network with a really fine set of bus routes (operated by Megabus in state-purchased coaches) that gather demand and move it at 70mph on the interstates (https://virginiabreeze.org/)

BOS-ALB-Beyond won't make economic sense until NY has upgraded ALB-BUF to outperform the NY Thruway.
 
Arlington said:
Ok, now compare to Greyhound

BOS-ALB is *today* 4:15 (1:05 minutes faster than train, 5 minutes faster than the future train) with ZERO capital expense or operating subsidy on Greyhound from SS to ALB bus terminal.
BOS-SYR could be 7:00 with ZERO capital expense if there was a bus' worth of demand (or a small operating subsidy)
BOS-BUF is about 8 hours of drive time. Still way better than 10:22 on the train.

Virginia, the other great state and adding intrastate rail service, has realized that rail is not the answer to connecting their state to economic opportunity on long-and-thin routes, nor when they could run "for free" on uncongested interstates. And in a move that I'd recommend to MassDOT, Virginia is overlaying its Amtrak network with a really fine set of bus routes (operated by Megabus in state-purchased coaches) that gather demand and move it at 70mph on the interstates (https://virginiabreeze.org/)

BOS-ALB-Beyond won't make economic sense until NY has upgraded ALB-BUF to outperform the NY Thruway.
Click to expand...
Thats why I suggest the New Haven dinky solution
 
Arlington said:
Ok, now compare to Greyhound

BOS-ALB is *today* 4:15 (1:05 minutes faster than train, 5 minutes faster than the future train) with ZERO capital expense or operating subsidy on Greyhound from SS to ALB bus terminal.
BOS-SYR could be 7:00 with ZERO capital expense if there was a bus' worth of demand (or a small operating subsidy)
BOS-BUF is about 8 hours of drive time. Still way better than 10:22 on the train.

Virginia, the other great state and adding intrastate rail service, has realized that rail is not the answer to connecting their state to economic opportunity on long-and-thin routes, nor when they could run "for free" on uncongested interstates. And in a move that I'd recommend to MassDOT, Virginia is overlaying its Amtrak network with a really fine set of bus routes (operated by Megabus in state-purchased coaches) that gather demand and move it at 70mph on the interstates (https://virginiabreeze.org/)

BOS-ALB-Beyond won't make economic sense until NY has upgraded ALB-BUF to outperform the NY Thruway.
Click to expand...

I … actually 100% agree. I’d even take it a step further and say that BOS-PIT doesn’t make economic sense either.

Political motivations aside, upgrades to the BOS-SPG segment should be the priority, with bus investments beyond Springfield.
 
Arlington said:
The Berkshires are a hard slog by rail (expensive to upgrade, difficult to operate) and relatively empty of on-line demand, so it is really hard to get $/passenger numbers to justify capital improvements going west of SPG.

vs: Buses and 4 rubber tires are really good at going a sustained 75mph while climbing up and down on the grades of the MassPike (which are impossibly steep if you're a train with all your traction on about 8 dimes' worth of metal-on-metal) SPG ALB by Bus would provide frequent service at average speeds higher than a train would ever deliver at any reasonable price tag.

vs: Trains are really good going north and south along the Hudson. Which is why Mass is partnering with NY on the Berkshire Flyer as a small extension to a train that runs on a flat and fast route to NYC.


It actually does not make sense. Capitals are not all that good at aggregating regional demand, just ask Montpelier and Augusta how well they serve as a hub for VT or Maine. NY's hub is NYC, not ALB. Nor other than being capitals is there any special economic or social benefit to connect them: there isn't a market for "I lobbied in Albany in the Morning and lobbied in Boston in the afternoon" kind of synergies. (Compared with "I work in NYC and vacate or educated in the Berkshires")
Click to expand...

Then I guess you could make the argument that we could provide the best (high speed) train service possible to Springfield, while providing funds to subsidize busses between Albany, Pittsfield and Springfield.
 
^ I believe that the best rail solution will involve higher speeds to CT/NYC, WOR/BOS, and Vermont (the 3-legged rail hub at SPG) and then a bus hub at SPG, fanning out with direct service to "off rail" demand centers everywhere from Albany, Amherst, North Adams, Dartmouth NH, the Barringtons, PIT, etc.

(for which there's already a great set of bus bays: photo from Wikimedia)
800px-Bus_terminal_at_Springfield_Union_Station%2C_August_2018.JPG
 
Arlington said:
Ok, now compare to Greyhound

BOS-ALB is *today* 4:15 (1:05 minutes faster than train, 5 minutes faster than the future train) with ZERO capital expense or operating subsidy on Greyhound from SS to ALB bus terminal.
BOS-SYR could be 7:00 with ZERO capital expense if there was a bus' worth of demand (or a small operating subsidy)
BOS-BUF is about 8 hours of drive time. Still way better than 10:22 on the train.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't take those timetables at face value though. For years I was a twice a week New Haven <-> Boston bus rider and those are more like rough guesses than actual schedules. Anyone who's consistently ridden intercity bus will tell you you're just as likely to be over an hour late as you are on time.
 
themissinglink said:
Electrified HSR between Boston and Springfield/Pittsfield/Albany would be awesome, but seeing as how the HSR ROW alongside the Pike was going to be ~$25 billion, I don't think it'll ever happen.
Click to expand...
Yea, I know, the cost is depressing. I'm not sure what the solution is but I just cant shake the feeling that building a rail link that's slower than driving will put a complete stop to any dream of a useful service. I could be wrong tho. Maybe eventually the track can be upgraded and electrified. Here's hoping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top