Join the discussion on the following article:
Massachusetts releases 10-year transportation plan
Are they really serious about high speed service toMontreal? This has never been a high density travel corridor, no more than one day and one overnight train even at the peak of rail travel. And do they realize South Station is not where it would originate? A more realistic objective would be extension of the MBTA Lowell line north to Concord, N.H. If service to the north is to be extended. This would attract reasonable numberers of riders.
Before they seak new revenue to pay for new goals, it seems to me that they need to balance the current budget. They should take a cold, hard look at everything from the top dog’s allowance for treats and other compensation down to the cost of each paperclip. Then the tweak the expenses and if the budget still will not balance, then the fare schedule is the next thing to tweak. If the fare structure will not support the cost of providing the service, why expand the service?
Well, let’s see here… in regard to Mr. Bates’s comment, I really have nothing to add beyond what Mr. Bradley has to say, except to note that any significant expansion of highways or automobile traffic in the eastern Massachusetts area is a very poor idea – unlike Texas, that area is genuinely crowded.
With regarded Dr. McDonald’s comments, it is quite true that the old Boston to Montreal service operated from North Station on the Boston & Maine. However, it used a line in western New Hampshire which isn’t there any more, and is not likely to be rebuilt. The new service would run from South Station to Springfield, MA, where it would connect with proposed higher speed service to New York in one direction, and to Montreal, on the recently upgraded New England Central lines, in the other. That line would require additional upgrades for higher speed service (say 110 mph to 150 mph) but it is quite feasible.
It would be nice to suppose that the Lowell line could be extended to Concord, NH; in fact, this has been proposed. However, it would take at least some assistance from the State of New Hampshire, which has proved in the past to be almost totally uninterested in passenger rail service.
Tax and spend…tax and spend…tax and spend…just to leave a legacy
Unlike ‘profitable’ highways, these rail projects will require no destruction of existing neighborhoods, will reduce our dependence on the automobile, and improve our energy efficiency.
“EDMOND BATES from TEXAS said:
Before they seak new revenue to pay for new goals, it seems to me that they need to balance the current budget. They should take a cold, hard look at everything from the top dog’s allowance for treats and other compensation down to the cost of each paperclip. Then the tweak the expenses and if the budget still will not balance, then the fare schedule is the next thing to tweak. If the fare structure will not support the cost of providing the service, why expand the service?”
Agreed. Keep in mind this is east coast government. None of that will ever happen. Like Chicago, the corruption runs long and deep. The only solution they ever come up with is new ways to tax the provider in order to give to the recipient, which translates into more recipients than providers voting at the ballot box.