Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This makes no sense at all. Albany has big Amtrak use because it’s the state capital and everyone lives in NYC where public transportation is how you get places. There is no other reason to go to Albany. Metro Hartford is far more affluent than metro Albany. If you want a real city, it’s NYC and Boston. Albany is invisible.
Yes, NYC is why there is so much service at Albany. It’s a large connecting station and much of its ridership is due to easily being able to get to NYC.
Having the train go to Albany in the event of a Pittsfield-Boston line, or out to Springfield in the event of a NYC-Pittsfield line, isn’t because Springfield or Albany are megacities—it’s because they are the next stops over from Pittsfield and you might as well go that extra stop since it doesn’t add much more time for the potential bonus in ridership from being larger, but not massive cities, and have a lot of connecting rail service to other fairly close by small cities. Terminating in Pittsfield doesn’t make much sense to me when those are the adjacent stops.
Ideally for Massachusetts, Albany residents and those in the surrounding areas or connecting train services would sometimes make their way to Massachusetts for a visit.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-28-2019 at 07:23 AM..
Yes, NYC is why there is so much service at Albany. It’s a large connecting station and much of its ridership is due to easily being able to get to NYC.
Having the train go to Albany in the event of a Pittsfield-Boston line, or out to Springfield in the event of a NYC-Pittsfield line, isn’t because Springfield or Albany are megacities—it’s because they are the next stops over from Pittsfield and you might as well go that extra stop since it doesn’t add much more time for the potential bonus in ridership from being larger, but not massive cities, and have a lot of connecting rail service to other fairly close by small cities. Terminating in Pittsfield doesn’t make much sense to me when those are the adjacent stops.
Ideally for Massachusetts, Albany residents and those in the surrounding areas or connecting train services would sometimes make their way to Massachusetts for a visit.
This is totally insane. You don't spend precious transportation dollars on low population density areas so a few tourists can go there by train. That's what bus service is for. A train to Pittsfield from anywhere would have horrible utilization numbers. The vibrant eastern Massachusetts economy that subsidizes Pittsfield is choking on a totally failed transportation infrastructure. That's where the money needs to be spent.
This is totally insane. You don't spend precious transportation dollars on low population density areas so a few tourists can go there by train. That's what bus service is for. A train to Pittsfield from anywhere would have horrible utilization numbers. The vibrant eastern Massachusetts economy that subsidizes Pittsfield is choking on a totally failed transportation infrastructure. That's where the money needs to be spent.
massDot will not spend money for rails between Pittsfield/Springfield, or Albany/Pittsfield.
rail between Worcester/Springfield is more important and should have higher priority. Even this is not guaranteed as MA is not truly convinced on rails for Western Mass. CTrail to Springfield should not be counted as MA effort, it largely was funded by CT.
This is totally insane. You don't spend precious transportation dollars on low population density areas so a few tourists can go there by train. That's what bus service is for. A train to Pittsfield from anywhere would have horrible utilization numbers. The vibrant eastern Massachusetts economy that subsidizes Pittsfield is choking on a totally failed transportation infrastructure. That's where the money needs to be spent.
I agree with you that the priority should mostly be where most of the population and economic development is. Things like the North-South Rail Link and electrifying MBTA commuter rail and improving those frequencies, and to a lesser extent, their reach, is definitely more important for the same transit dollars.
The question that's being asked though is Springfield to Boston rail and the options being presented. Among these options with the Springfield-Boston line and with the Berkshire Flyer are to terminate in Pittsfield. I'm agreeing with you that a train terminating in Pittsfield is a bad idea, so I'm saying that if Massachusetts does decide to go for rail past Springfield to Pittsfield, then they might as well go to Albany because for the bucks being spent already going to Pittsfield, they might as well make it a lot more usable by going over to the next stop in Albany where there are more jobs and more residents as well as connecting train lines. The same goes for the Berkshire Flyer line ending in Pittsfield when it would make more sense to bring it to Springfield which has more jobs and more residents as well as connecting train lines. This isn't saying that these are the best choices--they are just better than the Pittsfield-terminating options proffered. If the Berkshire Flyer never happens or the Boston to Springfield line terminates in Springfield, that's fine. It maybe wouldn't be a waste to go the extra distance to Albany or Springfield via Pittsfield. It would almost certainly be one to go to just Pittsfield.
As for why make any of the extensions, yea, it can very well not be a great idea (again though, better than just terminating in Pittsfield). However, the state does need to try to service people throughout the state not just in eastern Massachusetts, and these rail tracks already exist, need to be maintained to a certain extent because there is currently passenger rail running through this route (Lake Shore Limited) and the station already exists. The starting cost is rolling stock and operating costs instead of any particular large capital investments. This might be a fairly low entry fee to get the rest of the state to be in favor of transit funding in general.
massDot will not spend money for rails between Pittsfield/Springfield, or Albany/Pittsfield.
rail between Worcester/Springfield is more important and should have higher priority. Even this is not guaranteed as MA is not truly convinced on rails for Western Mass. CTrail to Springfield should not be counted as MA effort, it largely was funded by CT.
Yea, the Hartford Line that serves Springfield is mostly a CT effort. The Valley Flyer going through Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield is also Massachusetts piggybacking a bit, because it's extending a few of the Hartford Line runs.
If the Boston-Springfield run is made, then NYS may help pay for an extension to Albany which is also why the option of terminating in Pittsfield for that isn't a very attractive one since NYS certainly wouldn't chip in for a Pittsfield-Boston run, but could do so for an Albany-Boston one.
Yea, the Hartford Line that serves Springfield is mostly a CT effort. The Valley Flyer going through Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield is also Massachusetts piggybacking a bit, because it's extending a few of the Hartford Line runs.
....on track that already has the Vermonter Amtrak train running on it. It's not like it's an infrastructure investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
If the Boston-Springfield run is made, then it should be NYS that helps pay for an extension to Albany which is also why the option of terminating in Pittsfield for that isn't a very attractive one since NYS certainly wouldn't chip in for a Pittsfield-Boston run, but would do so for an Albany-Boston one.
Personally, I think it would be better bang for the buck to have a multi-mode transit station somewhere outside 495 with trivial access from the Mass Pike and a huge amount of cheap/free parking. The East Millbury exit off the Pike is really close to the track. You wouldn't have to take much land by eminent domain to put it there. Run bus service to align with the rail schedule there. It's 51 miles to Springfield Union Station so not much of a bus ride. Then spend the money making the Worcester line electrified, much faster by eliminating grade crossings, and far more frequent.
....on track that already has the Vermonter Amtrak train running on it. It's not like it's an infrastructure investment.
Exactly--which is why it happened and why if there's a consideration for a run to Pittsfield via Albany or to Pittsfield via Springfield, then the more sensible option is to simply go on to Albany and Springfield since the Lake Shore Limited tracks and stations already exist on top of those being larger population/job centers, having large railyards, and having a lot more additional rail service connections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
Personally, I think it would be better bang for the buck to have a multi-mode transit station somewhere outside 495 with trivial access from the Mass Pike and a huge amount of cheap/free parking. The East Millbury exit off the Pike is really close to the track. You wouldn't have to take much land by eminent domain to put it there. Run bus service to align with the rail schedule there. It's 51 miles to Springfield Union Station so not much of a bus ride. Then spend the money making the Worcester line electrified, much faster by eliminating grade crossings, and far more frequent.
Yea, that could work. If it ends up grabbing enough ridership, then it makes the case for converting to rail all the way and that generally means greater eligibility for federal funding. How crowded does the Pike get west of Worcester? Is it ever stop and go traffic?
The pike can be OK but all it takes is one tractor trailer rollover and it's done. The thing is that time driving is wasted time. Parking in Boston is what.. $35 a day easily. You factor that cost out and tolls which are what $5 each way. Then gas which I'd say is half a tank round trip. I'd argue that's at least $12 right there. $57 daily
Then you can eat, use the bathroom, read, email etc.
The pike can be OK but all it takes is one tractor trailer rollover and it's done. The thing is that time driving is wasted time. Parking in Boston is what.. $35 a day easily. You factor that cost out and tolls which are what $5 each way. Then gas which I'd say is half a tank round trip. I'd argue that's at least $12 right there. $57 daily
Then you can eat, use the bathroom, read, email etc.
Yea, but I think what he was referring to was a bus in lieu of rail. It doesn’t help the tractor trailer rollover part of things, but it does help the not having to look at the road side of things.
One thing is how much of the trackage is owned by freight railroads and how winding the path is. In some cases, it may make sense to build at least some portions to divert from a winding freight company owned track to a publicly owned passenger track. It can be expensive to build such, but built strategically it can result in basically having the older freight tracks being divvied away from passenger track for a bit so you can operate more direct passenger track and allow freight/passenger trains to bypass each other for a bit and hew to a better and more reliable schedule while also building in redundancies for certain parts.
Anyhow, I’m definitely for more frequent Boston train service to at least Springfield, and if more ambitious, to Albany via Pittsfield. The state wants to argue for more funding on multiple levels for rail transit, so it behooves it to involve more of the state in rail transit.
Yea, but I think what he was referring to was a bus in lieu of rail. It doesn’t help the tractor trailer rollover part of things, but it does help the not having to look at the road side of things.
One thing is how much of the trackage is owned by freight railroads and how winding the path is. In some cases, it may make sense to build at least some portions to divert from a winding freight company owned track to a publicly owned passenger track. It can be expensive to build such, but built strategically it can result in basically having the older freight tracks being divvied away from passenger track for a bit so you can operate more direct passenger track and allow freight/passenger trains to bypass each other for a bit and hew to a better and more reliable schedule while also building in redundancies for certain parts.
Anyhow, I’m definitely for more frequent Boston train service to at least Springfield, and if more ambitious, to Albany via Pittsfield. The state wants to argue for more funding on multiple levels for rail transit, so it behooves it to involve more of the state in rail transit.
I know you want to dream big on rails. But I want to be realistic. Yes, there will be commuter train between Springfield and Boston. The frequency will be only 6 round trips or less, but it will be.
Pittsfield or Albany, no. MA won't fund it, NY won't fund it.
If you look at NY politics, it is very like that MA. MA rail has boston centric vs out sphere including western pass etc. NY has NYC vs upper new york issues. NY east access project, penn access project are all like big dig, huge money hole sucking all the resource. The new capitol funding for subway, Metro North and Long Island lines etc are huge too.
CT Metro North new haven line will benefit from NY east access/penn access projects too. Albany rail to MA, not focus of NY state. MA is not CT. CT is exception on rails. CT spends so much on three rail lines covering whole state from west to east and to north and south. CT craziness on rail investment is exception, not norm.
Last edited by jxzz; 10-28-2019 at 10:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
