So far they're only studying the Northern Tier/Fitchburg Line alignment for that, which is a billion-dollar born loser that definitely won't happen by 2045. The L-shaped alignment BOS-SPG-GFD would be plug-and-play, but they haven't pivoted to that yet.
Express trains on the Fitchburg Line would be great.
Given that this corridor/region appears to have near-zero road delays even at rush hour, the very modest ridership projections, and the twisty nature of the rail line, reading this over....this project to me feels kind of like one of the "why are we not starting with a bus" projects.
The following graphics were from the first community meeting, and not included in the final report, but they do a decent job of illustrating where folks want to go. The Central Segment, which includes Leominster, Fitchburg and Wachusett, notably doesn't have a particularly strong demand for Chelmsford/Lowell for some reason. While I believe these charts are somewhat flawed in including all travel, hence their strong lean to local trips, it's still decent data for planning purposes.
I mean, there's a reason Alt 4, which had the most stops was preferred by most of the commenters. That said, of your list that we're still omitted, Orange is admittedly the most obvious miss, but the rest of those towns have a population of <2k each. I'm not sure you could justify the cost of any of those station stops when MAAB would tell you to put in a full-high. I'd like to see them launch this as a bus service first - much as the rail passes through those downtowns, so too does Rt 2. The incremental cost of stopping at those towns would be functionally nil. That would allow them to draw real-world trip data to see how that impacts ridership before they build the train, if at all, but I'm fairly sure that Coach service is the way forward here.
This is me diverging a bit off-topic, but this hits on an idea that I've had for a while that we might call "Flyers for All": creating an economic investment in small/rural communities by subsidizing rail (or bus) service throughout the year to provide affordable "weekend getaways" for city residents (providing a car-free alternative). Take a small downtown like Shelburne Falls: walkable, with small inns/BnB's, cafes and a few restaurants, sitting along a beautiful river, and walking trails a stone's throw away (walking distance in some cases, but also easily covered by a single van's shuttle service). It would be easy to do a pleasant weekend getaway, with one's S.O. or family or a group of friends.
I mean, Lowell and Chelmsford are the same shade of blue as Boston and Waltham. If demand to Boston is sufficient for the commuter rail, then that suggests the same might be true for Lowell?The following graphics were from the first community meeting, and not included in the final report, but they do a decent job of illustrating where folks want to go. The Central Segment, which includes Leominster, Fitchburg and Wachusett, notably doesn't have a particularly strong demand for Chelmsford/Lowell for some reason. While I believe these charts are somewhat flawed in including all travel, hence their strong lean to local trips, it's still decent data for planning purposes.
Right, and this extends to the Central Mass segment as well; the study's Central Segment has as many residents who work in Worcester as in Boston proper. If you add in Cambridge alongside Boston, those combined exceed all destinations except Leominster; but, in turn Worcester plus Marlboro combined are neck-and-neck. All of which is why I gamed out a Gardner <> Worcester x Worcester <> Boston service plan a couple of years ago.
Holyoke went from the least used Amtrak station in the state to doubling its annual ridership and surpassing Framingham. I'd image a Shore Line East level of service between Springfield and Greenfield would at the minimum outperform SLE buy at least double.
It would be such a great thing for Greenfield to have direct rail to Boston. My dad's side of the family goes back to the late 1700s in the Greenfield area, and I love it there, but Greenfield needs the economic boost that a rail link to Boston would provide.
That really isn’t much of a pitch for an infrastructure project. “Build here, there’s lots of homeless people.”
Could say the same about any road to a Greenfield development (pun intended). The reason you build out useable infrastructure is to enhance the economy of the region and in this case that would be improving job access and alleviating poverty and homelessness. That and at the same time improving accessibility to Greenfield from other places which would attracted businesses to create more jobs in Greenfield, supporting the local population.
Greenfield is very different than New Bedford and Fall River, and has very different potential. Greenfield is a lot smaller (about 1/18 the population of New Bedford), is a much nicer town in the sense that it's not a large ex-industrial town, and it's overall a prettier, more picturesque town, in my opinion. That matters because the "quant" New England town vibe is with Greenfield, and that could be an attractor for new residents and businesses with a rail connection, whereas Fall River and New Bedford lack that type of appeal. I lived in New Bedford for 4 years and it seemed like a dreary, kind of scary place. So, comparing Greenfield to New Bedford/Fall River is really apples and oranges.
Fitchburg is 6th on the line in boardings behind South Acton, Waltham, Concord, West Concord, and Littleton. With Littleton eclipsing it in the 2018 counts after it got its schedule increases from being the new short-turn terminus. If anything there's a crying need for frequency increases on the inner half of the line and frequency increases in general, rather than a super-express. I'm sure Fitchburg would do a bit better if there were slots with much shorter travel times, but agreed, it's not a Worcester in overall heft. More gets left on the table skipping the middle stops like the Concords, South Acton, and Littleton/495 than is gained by juicing up Fitchburg.
I think part of the difference is these are different kinds of trains services with different goals. New Bedford is commuter/regional rail, while Greenfield would be intercity rail (basically, Amtrak).
I think New Bedford is a quaint New England town with a decent bit to offer aside from being home to nearly 200,000 people in the cities proper. A rich Portuguese heritage and a historic downtown. A key difference in extending rail to New Bedford and Fall River from Boston as opposed to Greenfield from Springfield is that these two cities become realistic destinations for the 1/3 of Boston households that do not own a car. Not only that but the low car ownership surrounding cities of Boston as well as simply the sheer number of people with money and time to spend in the Boston area over Springfield. There's also the consideration of UMass Dartmouth being a college student trip generator both ways. There's also the much more convenient Martha's Vineyard ferry connections compared to the 3 trips a week and seasonal-only Cape Flyer. The list goes on and on for reasons to go to admittedly New Bedford over Fall River. I know I personally have been waiting with baited breath for SCR to open so I can go to New Bedford since I don't own a car anymore. Though I'm just one person.
