Reasonable Transit Pitches

[Highwayguy]

Does anyone know the linked vs unlinked trip split? I think l recall seeing an 80% figure somewhere, but l may just be making that up. If that figures true, wouldn’t a simpler solution just be to make the busses free? Free transit in general is a a bad idea since the money is better spent on service, but if 80% of bus riders are still paying the $2.50 at the turnstile anyway, losing 20% from the (literal) free riders seems like it could be worth the increase in operational efficiency.

Removes the need for placing any concrete or zonal fares. Could make an exception for the very few busses that don’t terminate at an outlying RT interchange like the expresses. The 111 would be a big question mark though since theres equity arguments either way.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Does anyone know the linked vs unlinked trip split? I think l recall seeing an 80% figure somewhere, but l may just be making that up. If that figures true, wouldn’t a simpler solution just be to make the busses free? Free transit in general is a a bad idea since the money is better spent on service, but if 80% of bus riders are still paying the $2.50 at the turnstile anyway, losing 20% from the (literal) free riders seems like it could be worth the increase in operational efficiency.

Removes the need for placing any concrete or zonal fares. Could make an exception for the very few busses that don’t terminate at an outlying RT interchange like the expresses. The 111 would be a big question mark though since theres equity arguments either way.

Probably works for anything other than suburban Express Buses.

 

[Tallguy]

Does anyone know the linked vs unlinked trip split? I think l recall seeing an 80% figure somewhere, but l may just be making that up. If that figures true, wouldn’t a simpler solution just be to make the busses free? Free transit in general is a a bad idea since the money is better spent on service, but if 80% of bus riders are still paying the $2.50 at the turnstile anyway, losing 20% from the (literal) free riders seems like it could be worth the increase in operational efficiency.

Removes the need for placing any concrete or zonal fares. Could make an exception for the very few busses that don’t terminate at an outlying RT interchange like the expresses. The 111 would be a big question mark though since theres equity arguments either way.

Higher. 85, I believe

 

[DominusNovus]

Acela pitch: how difficult would it be to run an Acela along the inland NEC route (Boston-Springfield-New Haven-New York)? Looks a little rugged between Worcester and Springfield, but that stretch along the Connecticut River looks reasonably straight.

I’m sure, overall, it would be a longer distance than the coastal route, but could it work as an alternate route allowing for work on the existing line? Bonus points, it would necessitate upgrades to the inland route.

 

[jklo]

Acela pitch: how difficult would it be to run an Acela along the inland NEC route (Boston-Springfield-New Haven-New York)? Looks a little rugged between Worcester and Springfield, but that stretch along the Connecticut River looks reasonably straight.

I’m sure, overall, it would be a longer distance than the coastal route, but could it work as an alternate route allowing for work on the existing line? Bonus points, it would necessitate upgrades to the inland route.

I don't think it's difficult but very pricey. IIRC the main reason it was talked about because of flooding potential along the current route; I think in RI.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I don't think it's difficult but very pricey. IIRC the main reason it was talked about because of flooding potential along the current route; I think in RI.

Practical political problem -- you lose the support of two (2) Senators from RI in going for funding.

 

[bigeman312]

The next logical step towards Inland Route passenger service is already in the works.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), in partnership with Amtrak, and with support from CSX, has submitted an application for funding from the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Fiscal Year 2022 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program. The application seeks more than $108 million for corridor infrastructure projects planned under the “Connecting the Commonwealth: Early Actions for the Inland Route Project.”

...

The Project will facilitate two Amtrak Inland Route daily round trips as a first phase of corridor improvements that improve connections within Massachusetts between Boston, Worcester, and Springfield and to communities beyond the Commonwealth in Connecticut and New York City. In addition to the two new daily trains, travel times will be improved for the existing Amtrak Lake Shore Limited, enhancing connections from Eastern Massachusetts to Pittsfield, Albany, NY, and other upstate New York communities.

No need to give it the "Acela" label. Two round-trips per day, priming the route, studying ridership, and determining next-steps, is all very reasonable.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Acela pitch: how difficult would it be to run an Acela along the inland NEC route (Boston-Springfield-New Haven-New York)? Looks a little rugged between Worcester and Springfield, but that stretch along the Connecticut River looks reasonably straight.

I’m sure, overall, it would be a longer distance than the coastal route, but could it work as an alternate route allowing for work on the existing line? Bonus points, it would necessitate upgrades to the inland route.

There would be no point. The Springfield Line (due to grade crossings) and B&A (due to curves/hills) can't natively reach the speeds used by Acela equipment without billions of dollars in line relocation and crossing eliminations. They don't even top out at the highest speed capable of Northeast Regional equipment. You could push sizeable portions of the Springfield Line to 110 MPH and small parts of the B&A to 90 MPH, but that's about it. So for performance reasons you'd never consider running an Acela there. Hartford-Springfield-Worcester are also negligible markets for first-class service (New Haven is too...it's dwarfed in Acela boardings by more-upscale Stamford), so there'd be no profit motive for Amtrak even trying. Compared with business- and coach-class Regionals which are in high demand for those cities, first-class service would bring negligible returns. Finally, the double-stack freight traffic on the B&A makes it extremely difficult to electrify; there are 35 bridges between Springfield and Worcester to clear another 2-1/2 feet, and that's simply not going to be paid for with what frequencies and ridership have studied out to on the corridor (plus all Regionals will have dual-mode locomotives by default in a few years, so a Springfield-Worcester diesel gap would pose little challenge to the non-premium services).

There's a good chance we'll be seeing some meaningful Inland schedules in a few years, but the Acela is very bread-and-butter in its D.C.-Philly-New York-Boston orientation to the king-size markets. Switching out a different set of smaller cities in CT and MA doesn't really offer a different look to that profit center, because the Inland cities don't really rate as destination pairs of any significant heft (or at least any heft above-and-beyond what's adequately served by more Inland Regionals).

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Not sure why this never clicked before, but wouldn't the warehouse The Davis Compaines built on the Everett-Chelsea line over the last couple years make a great acquisition for the T? They built it for/leased it to Amazon, but apparently the company closed the delivery facility planned there almost as soon as it opened as part of its broader retrenchment: https://everettindependent.com/2022/08/24/amazon-warehouse-slated-to-be-closed/

It's a big tall for a bus or train OMF, but it seems ideally placed for either. Could take pressure off of the OG Everett garage to allow for rebuilding/expanding, and/or be used to support any future Urban Ring successor that uses the Newburyport ROW.

Now, with Amazon firmly backing away from a lot of growth plans and maybe a recession looming, wouldn't the developer want to ditch this asset for a reasonable price?

IIRC from when it was under construction, it seemed like a pretty typical tilt-up warehouse, so I'd think rearranging the interior from the original design wouldn't be much of a problem; ditto turning those loading docs on the east side into proper garage doors or punching additional holes in the walls, right?

A floor plan graphic from when it was still being approved:

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not sure why this never clicked before, but wouldn't the warehouse The Davis Compaines built on the Everett-Chelsea line over the last couple years make a great acquisition for the T? They built it for/leased it to Amazon, but apparently the company closed the delivery facility planned there almost as soon as it opened as part of its broader retrenchment: https://everettindependent.com/2022/08/24/amazon-warehouse-slated-to-be-closed/

It's a big tall for a bus or train OMF, but it seems ideally placed for either. Could take pressure off of the OG Everett garage to allow for rebuilding/expanding, and/or be used to support any future Urban Ring successor that uses the Newburyport ROW.

Now, with Amazon firmly backing away from a lot of growth plans and maybe a recession looming, wouldn't the developer want to ditch this asset for a reasonable price?

IIRC from when it was under construction, it seemed like a pretty typical tilt-up warehouse, so I'd think rearranging the interior from the original design wouldn't be much of a problem; ditto turning those loading docs on the east side into proper garage doors or punching additional holes in the walls, right?

A floor plan graphic from when it was still being approved:

View attachment 35511

It's part of the Everett Terminal property, so the zoning might be locked in as industrial/warehousing.