Join the discussion on the following article:
Massachusetts eyes Pan Am route
Here is a better name for the corridor: Pseudo-intellectual Progressive Taxpayer Funded Corridor. If these professors were the geniuses they claim to be, they would teach that you can’t spend money you don’t have, and printing more causes inflation. But, never let common sense get in the way of “free” transportation for progressives.
This line should not be sold to the Commonwealth. it will cost a lot of money, which the commonwealth does not have to fix up to a point where Amtrak can run two trains a day on it. There has to be a better way to spend the tax payer’s money than this small, low impact project.
This could be the springboard to putting a second round trip on the line to/from Burlington. St.Albans would not lose service since the old “Montrealer” could provide the service. But, as it must cross the U.S.-Canadian border it is not practical to operate another train that will sit for two or more hours to enter the U.S. A customs and immigration treaty on the European Union model, which Obama loves so much could be made to work. But, it assumes things that are not practical in the current climate.
“According to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, rerouting Vermonter from its current New England Central Railroad will reduce the overall travel time of the train, improve on-time performance, and increase ridership an estimated 24 percent.”
.
Will it really increase ridership 24 percent or will there just be 24 percent more people riding on the alternate route and leave the current riders without a train?
Guilford (sorry, Pan Am is a long gone airline) will never invest the money required to make this area passenger rail viable, because there is little benefit to their one freight a day (or maybe it’s every other day). Commuter rail would work well, and Guilford will never allow that, so the state buying it may be the best option. And as for a ridership increase, you’ll be adding 2 or 3 more station stops, while eliminating a lot of milage, and a reverse move on the mainline, so there should be big benefits there…
It appears a bunch of you making comments don’t realize that the new routing will put the tracks close to several area colleges including U Mass. The college students of today like using public transportation. A lot of them can jump on the train and go to NYC for the day or go north to go skiing because several stops in Vermont offer connections to ski slopes. The Downeaster gets a high volume of college student traffic at UNH Durham.
Actually, it is a really good idea. Guilford has a long history of letting its infrastructure fall into disrepair; they have shown no reason not to believe they would do that here also. CT is in the midst of expanding commuter rail to Springfield, and state ownership of the line would make further expansion much less expensive. Both CSX or the Pioneer Valley RR have easy connections to the line and could provide a much better level of freight service to the long-neglected customers on the line also.
in the proposed new routing, what cities (and population numbers) would lose service, and what cities would gain service?
This line through Northampton is not only funded by Massachuseetts, but Vermont has also chipped in. As mentioned by Peter from NY, Amtrak is in the process of establishing a customs processing center at the station in Montreal, which will not only serve the Adirondack, but the Montreal extension of the Vermonter, and another train on this same route as well, much like what is currently being done with the Cascades corridor in Washington State.
By the way, to add some humor, legend has it that the primary resaon why Amtrak had to reroute the service over the Cenrtral Vermont is because a number of railroad trestles on the line were damaged by beavers to build there natural dams. This damaged is what ultimately forced closure of the line and reroute of the Montrealer.
Interesting “conservative” comments by some! The atutomatic “bah, humbug” response of some railfans,
though their response is in line with their probable “tea party” sympathies politics. I am a conservative on money and aways like to see things done most economically. I also realize, as a student of the rails, that we will absolutely need more rail transit in the future. It is time that some railfans recognize the virute of “steel on steel” and not simply be “foamers” as to their own particular, and often narrow,
interests.
This is a good move. After all these years, eliminating the delay cause by Guilford’s cheapness will be an improvement.
Peter Benham must never have been to Europe where many national borders can be crossed without any inspection or delay.
What’s that have to do with Obama? Besides what does a New Yorker care about what Massachusetts spends on transportation projects? Also, what train to Burlington? I live in Vermont, and there is no passenger service there.
What is thoughtful and respectful about about slamming “progressives” as if they were somehow bad people? How about keeping the wackos out of the discussion? The one thing that non-progressives do so well is cast aspersions on the character of others. I learned nothing and saw no solution in the above discussion.
What is thoughtful and respectful about about slamming “progressives” as if they were somehow bad people? How about keeping the wackos out of the discussion? The one thing that non-progressives do so well is cast aspersions on the character of others. I learned nothing and saw no solution in the above discussion.
I think that many in the area would applaud the move to invest in a rail transport infrastructure project that would benefit local communities. I would rather see my taxes funneled into a project of this nature than money squandered on unnecessary military spending and dubious foreign policy initiatives.
While travelling Amtrak in Vermont a coule of years ago, an Amtrak conductor filled me in theplan for this reroute, which will cut significant running time to the Vermonter. Maybe the train will have some better connections at New York or Washington, like to one of the Silver service trains to/from Florida the same day, eliminating the overnight layover. The only stop that would lose its train service would be Amherst, MA. On the other hand, if plans follow through to have a Boston-Montreal train, that would then be restored and bring a second frequency to the Lake Shore route east of Palmer.
Jeffrey-how’s that free highway and air infrastructure working out for ya?? But why let common sense get in the way of spending money we don’t have on roads and airports??
Did it occur to you that Connecticut and Mass already fund a significant public transportation service?? This is a natural extention of it, and progress is often made incrementally. Gas prices are some of the highest in America, and congestion is, and has been for years, a major problem in the Hartford and Springfield areas. This is a winner all the way around, and provides a needed service.
Sounds like Guilford is getting another free ride. Taxpayers fixing up his track for his freight just like Amtrak and the MBTA and Norfolk Southern. They will get use of the rail without paying for fixing it and gain 17 Milion from its sale. I’d like a golden goose like that.
Would somebody PLEASE put a muzzle on Jeffery Guse?
Would somebody PLEASE put a muzzle on Jeffery Guse?
Donald says “The college students of today like using public transportation. A lot of them can jump on the train and go to NYC for the day or go north to go skiing because several stops in Vermont offer connections to ski slopes.”
That can certainly add riders and that is certainly desirable, but I am not sure if that is enough justification to spend $17 Million.