Springfield to Boston rail (Worcester, New Bedford: home, employment, public schools)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by robr2

It'll be closer to 75-90 minutes. The train doesn't go 120 mph start to finish - it has to accelerate and decelerate. Still, it's better than driving 90 -120 minutes.

Is that what they are saying? I know that would require MAJOR track upgrades.

[Cloudship]

Theoretically? If done right it would be a great asset. Not everyone is going to be going just between Boston and Springfield. Now you will connect the three major cities in Mass together. Two major airports at either end, Logan with rapid transit to South Station, Springfield would still need a bus to Bradley but doable.

BUT... that would mean doing it right. Which bluntly will not happen. You can't run commuter trains like MBTA wants to do. They need regular intercity services. Maybe not Acella but certainly to the grade of European intercity and not the AmCans pulled by dumpy diesels. And yes that means electrification. And forget this few trips in the morning and evening stuff which only serves a few commuters. Hourly service at a minimum, running early morning and late evening hours. And track upgrades, too.

There are too many obstacles in the way besides budget - track that has not been properly maintained owned and operated by companies not keen on the idea; struggles with the MBTA over MBTA owned and operated tracks; Nimbyism; and let's no forget the FRA which is anything BUT rail friendly. So, could it work? Possibly. Likely to work - highly doubtful.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Is that what they are saying? I know that would require MAJOR track upgrades.

Yes. Which also means 90 miles of construction which also means 90 miles of abutters and entire communities objecting to upgrades and construction (as well as the high speeds of the trains). The amount of work that would need to be done (not just the tracks themselves, but new bridges and tunnels to eliminate grade crossings) and the amount of push back this thing will get from people along the corridor (as well as challenges with, FRA, EPA, Army Corps, etc.), put this firmly in fantasy land. Nice idea, but realistically a long, long, long way out if it will ever happen.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Yes. Which also means 90 miles of construction which also means 90 miles of abutters and entire communities objecting to upgrades and construction (as well as the high speeds of the trains). The amount of work that would need to be done (not just the tracks themselves, but new bridges and tunnels to eliminate grade crossings) and the amount of push back this thing will get from people along the corridor (as well as challenges with EPA, Army Corps, etc.), put this firmly in fantasy land. Nice idea, but realistically a long, long, long way out if it will ever happen.

Yup.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Yes. Which also means 90 miles of construction which also means 90 miles of abutters and entire communities objecting to upgrades and construction (as well as the high speeds of the trains). The amount of work that would need to be done (not just the tracks themselves, but new bridges and tunnels to eliminate grade crossings) and the amount of push back this thing will get from people along the corridor (as well as challenges with, FRA, EPA, Army Corps, etc.), put this firmly in fantasy land. Nice idea, but realistically a long, long, long way out if it will ever happen.

Right. It would be one thing if there weren't much more critical needs facing the state's transportation system right now, but there are.

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Right. It would be one thing if there weren't much more critical needs facing the state's transportation system right now, but there are.

You mean like being able to get from Springfield to Worcester or Boston in any reasonably direct and easy way besides a bus or driving yourself and clogging up the roads even more?

I agree the state has many infrastructure woes. unfortunately this is one of them We keep throwing too much money to highway contractors for refacing projects instead of investing it where it is really needed.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Cloudship

You mean like being able to get from Springfield to Worcester or Boston in any reasonably direct and easy way besides a bus or driving yourself and clogging up the roads even more?

I agree the state has many infrastructure woes. unfortunately this is one of them We keep throwing too much money to highway contractors for refacing projects instead of investing it where it is really needed.

As much as it makes people outside of Metro Boston upset to hear, there are more important projects within the metro that Springfield-Boston rail. For example, the Green Line Extension, a Red/Blue Line connection (the value of which cannot be overstated), South Station Expansion (which is a necessary part of almost any expansion of rail service to Boston- included HSR from Springfield), and even the North-South Rail Link. These projects will do more for more people than any high speed rail project from Springfield to Boston.

Also, and this should tell you a lot about how exciting my life is, I traced the route from Springfield to Bosotn via satellite. There weren't as many grade crossings as I thought. Most of them look like they're private anyway (which is a different hurdle for the project). But a LOT of the route is single track, and a LOT of that single track is through wetlands. In order to get the frequencies you'd need to make this viable, you'd need to at least double track the whole route. Especially considering that freight already runs along this route. That's a mammoth task as it involves widening the right of ways (ROWs). Not only is this something abutters and communities will fight, it's something that the Environmental groups will challenge (maybe stop altogether). Even if you DO get the approvals for this, it essentially means every rail bridge and every road bridge over the tracks will need to be rebuilt. That's an incredible undertaking over 90 miles with all of the opposition to overcome. The price tag will be extraordinary (keep in mind, Fall River/New Bedford commuter rail- not high speed rail is already estimated at around $3 billion) and the permitting and construction process will take forever.

This seems like it would have to be a phased approach. Get Worcester/Boston done first. then Springfield/Worcester at a later date. That's being optimistic. I still don't see any of this as anything more than a nice idea at this point.

[mdovell]

Yeah, those other rail projects are nice but frankly, it isn't going to connect as many people as this. Consider that part of the sales tax goes to the MBTA even though only half the state has access to their services and all of the state paid for the big dig. To be frank there's more support from VT and CT and this isn't really a road the state wants to let happen.

CT actually has been paying for quite a bit of transit. The governor was trying to become the next transportation secretary but that didn't happen. Much of the development in the pioneer valley is along I-91 since that's where the CT river flows. As such it isn't that hard to go north and south. Cities that within say 30 miles from one another are usually linked with highways and various forms of media and events. If Mass allows the CT connector to go without trains to boston the state could technically lose money. It takes less time going to Albany from Springfield then Boston. It takes less time to New Haven. Then add in the problems Boston has with high cost housing and traffic and frankly it's no wonder why the chamber of commerce is for it. How many projects are going to slow down housing costs and traffic?

to note South Coast rail although interesting is being built from the extension on Middleboro. Taunton is being totally bypassed because the zig zag pattern is not viable.

Worcester - Boston is pretty much done. There already is a train from Chicago to Boston that stops in springfield. But the frequency doesn't work as well.

As for the time even if it's nearly the same time as a car that can still be fine given you can get up, use the bathroom, text, eat etc. I personally know people that went from new haven to manhattan everyday. Heck the 128 belt from the south shore for me was easily 90 minutes each way. If I didn't leave by 4pm then it would be two hours. If it was on a friday it would take three hours. The traffic plus the cost of housing is gradually turning away younger people from Boston.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Cloudship

You mean like being able to get from Springfield to Worcester or Boston in any reasonably direct and easy way besides a bus or driving yourself and clogging up the roads even more?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Cloudship

I agree the state has many infrastructure woes. unfortunately this is one of them.

Where can I find convincing information of this supposedly massive number of people moving between Springfield and Worcester or Boston each day?

Originally Posted by Cloudship

We keep throwing too much money to highway contractors for refacing projects instead of investing it where it is really needed.

What are you referring to, the "prevailing wage" laws? If so I would absolutely agree, but they will be very difficult to repeal. They also apply to rail construction.


I'll show you where money is really needed:


I93-I95 Interchange Improvements Project


This project has been on hold since 2010. At 375,000 vehicles per day, it is the busiest interchange in the state. How many people would ride the train from Springfield, maybe 25?


Here is another major (and actually needed) project that isn't getting done:


Canton Interchange




Roads all over the state are crumbling, so are the rails. Existing MBTA and Commuter Rail lines are in desperate need of upgrades. How about maintaining what we already have before committing to any new long term expansion.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Yeah, those other rail projects are nice but frankly, it isn't going to connect as many people as this.

I'm afraid you're missing the big picture, that the Boston and Springfield areas aren't on each other's radar. They are not commutable to each other, and there is not significant movement of people between the two. They are totally separate metros; unlike Boston/Worcester, Boston/Providence, Boston/Nashua and Manchester. Those cities all have strong physical and cultural ties to Boston. Springfield doesn't, it's more linked to Hartford and CT. Even Worcester and Springfield are total strangers to each other. I'm all for transit investment within the Springfield area (it's only fair like as you said 1% of the sales tax goes to the MBTA which only benefits one region of the state). But Springfield needs to stand on its own, it's simply too far away to be another overflow for Boston's unwanted.