[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Higher ended homes yes and by the time you get a 700k range it becomes an ARM. Arms make sense when rates go down, not up. Basically what I mean is that there's going to be some struggles within high-end Suburban areas that might cause people to rethink living in a suburban area versus an urban area. The government doesn't set the price of housing the market does. However, the government can certainly place limitations on how much they're willing to lend out to finance housing.

What kind of nonsense is this? The government doesn't lend out money for mortgages. It sponsors the quasi-government organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that consolidate mortgage portfolios and sell them mostly to outfits like pension funds and insurance companies. The whole mortgage backed securities part of finance. It backs FHA and VA loans for starter homes but the cutoffs for those are very low amounts.

I don't think any of us know anyone with a $700K to $1 million+ mortgage that's an ARM. When mortgages were at historically low rates, the whole planet locked in 15, 20, and 30 year fixed rate mortgages. Unless it's dire, just about none of those people are going to sell those homes now as mortgage rates are headed up. There's going to be a massive shortage of inventory in the gold-plated leafy suburbs until the next recession.

People live in the suburbs because urban school systems are an abject failure. Since we don't have competitive exam schools like the rest of the first world, strong students from college educated parents would be forced to sit in the classroom with ghetto barbarians. Nope. It's either private schools or flee to the suburbs where there aren't many ghetto barbarians. New York City is pretty much the only exception. Anywhere else, you flee to the suburbs before your kids hit school age unless you're so loaded that you can shell out $40K/year per kid for private school. No college educated professional parents on the planet are going to send their kids to Hartford or Springfield public schools.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Springfield’s financial problems did not end 14 years ago, they began then. Not sure when they ended. Hartford’s is just beginning but is hopefully under control now. Will see.

Springfield's financial problems began many decades ago. It's not like that 30% poverty rate just happened in 2004.

The difference between Massachusetts failed cities and Connecticut failed cities is that Massachusetts has deeper pockets. Since Proposition 2 1/2 in the late-1970's, Massachusetts has been propping up the failed city school systems which dominate any city budget. The flat state income tax and the property tax limitation amendment to the constitution forced the state, cities, and towns to push back on public sector unions 50 years ago so the feeding at the public trough hasn't been as excessive as Connecticut.

The Massachusetts state budget is ~25% Medicaid and ~25% Education with a 60/40 split on education between propping up the failed city K-12 systems + the state-run vocational-technical schools; and the state college system. All K-12 city/town pensions are funded by that city or town. Unlike the state pension system, those are usually pretty well funded so the unfunded pension liability debacle in Massachusetts isn't quite the severity of the Connecticut one. 8 years of sustained stock market growth certainly helped the pension funds get into better shape. Hopefully, they'll navigate the next recession properly.

[RunD1987]

Find Springfield COL significantly lower than the Hartford area. Though that can change greatly when the Casinos are built. What would be interesting is eventually can travel from NYC to Boston without taking Amtrak.

[KEVIN_224]

And if you're going by rail, what do you take from Springfield if it's not Amtrak?

[JayCT]

I am reminded that this thread is about the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield train service so we need to stop the debates about Springfield verses Hartford and return to the topic of the OP. If anyone wants to further discuss that topic further, they can start a new thread to discuss it. Thanks, JayCT, Moderator

[MrGompers]

In addition to the odd schedule, I think the pricing is a big mistake too. For example, the shortest trip Windsor <-> Hartford is $3.25 one way, but the same trip on CT Transit is $1.75. I do not think a train is worth a $1.50 upgrade. Not much difference in time either, train is about 15 mins and bus about 20 mins (from exit 38) Also, the bus stops at the Old State House which is more convenient for most office workers vs Union Station.

I would price the rail fares the same as Ct Transit for similar distances.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

In addition to the odd schedule, I think the pricing is a big mistake too. For example, the shortest trip Windsor <-> Hartford is $3.25 one way, but the same trip on CT Transit is $1.75. I do not think a train is worth a $1.50 upgrade. Not much difference in time either, train is about 15 mins and bus about 20 mins (from exit 38) Also, the bus stops at the Old State House which is more convenient for most office workers vs Union Station.

I would price the rail fares the same as Ct Transit for similar distances.

You see that difference on any train service. It costs $2.75 to go from Greenwich to Stamford when the bus is only $1.75. Not a long bus trip so why would someone pay an extra dollar to use it?

The reason is that the train service is not designed for these one-time short trips. They are set more for the regular commuter who will buy a monthly pass and use it daily. Jay

[mdovell]

Well the pricing on this is all from CT DOT. Naturally there are Amtrak and even the Vermonter lines (VT pays for that one).

Ridership compounds. What I mean by that is if you want more service you have to use what's already there. Transit planning isn't fun. Ultimately I think Springfield will be more linked with Worcester which would provide better access from Hartford and New Haven and a 2nd route to Boston without having to go though RI.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Well the pricing on this is all from CT DOT. Naturally there are Amtrak and even the Vermonter lines (VT pays for that one).

Ridership compounds. What I mean by that is if you want more service you have to use what's already there. Transit planning isn't fun. Ultimately I think Springfield will be more linked with Worcester which would provide better access from Hartford and New Haven and a 2nd route to Boston without having to go though RI.

There would have to be significant work to connect Worcester to Springfield.

And Springfield is much more connected to Hartford than Worcester, 91 is much busier in both directions than the central Mass Pike.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

There would have to be significant work to connect Worcester to Springfield.

And Springfield is much more connected to Hartford than Worcester, 91 is much busier in both directions than the central Mass Pike.

I don't think anybody connects to Worcester.

I imagine anyone sitting in Enfield or Suffield identifies as a Hartford suburb, not a Springfield suburb. The commuter traffic and the commuter rail traffic mostly flow that way. The time Springfield I-91 is busy is on Friday afternoons as affluent Connecticut people head to Vermont. Springfield otherwise doesn't have enough economic activity to have real city-type traffic jams.

I'm sure the ride count numbers will be publicly available as the service launches. As I always write about MBTA commuter rail, the long term strategy needs to be electrified rail with frequent autonomous short trains. Trains are massively efficient since they have such low rolling resistance. If you knock the labor costs out and run electric trains, you can run them 24x7 and the usage goes way up. With infrequent service, only commuters are going to use it. Most others will opt to drive.