Hey, there! Log in / Register
Robinson goes for the T, Amtrak vote
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Lost me at word one
I don't think either make any sense.
There are other routes that would make more sense for a bullet train.
And, while the idea of free travel on the MBTA might seem logical, I don't think the cost of a fare is what keeps people from using it - it's a litany of reasons.
Plus, I haven't seen one person actually pay to use the above-ground Green Line, in over a year!
The issue with fare collection is not so much that it
discourages throngs of people from using the system, it's the costs associated with the fare collection itself. This is one of the arguments that's been used in support of eliminating tolls from highways.
In the T's case, you're talking about everything from salaries for CSAs and police officers that conduct fare enforcement, the costs of operating and maintaining the faregates, fareboxes, and CharlieTicket machines, costs for the security services to collect money (yes, even with Charlie, there is still cash that needs to be collected) from the stations, etc. etc..
I'm not saying (yet) that a fare-free MBTA is the way to go, but it would be worth conducting a detailed analysis to determine just how much it actually costs the MBTA to collect fares in relation to the total amount of revenue they actually take in from those fares.
Say the T spends 65% of the fare revenue just to collect fares. Most would contend that that is far less efficient than eliminating fares and raising that remaining 35% through other means.
I'm not sure that failed
I'm not sure that failed fare collection on the green line makes the point that eliminating fares is a bad idea. Certainly the fare structure should be looked at, though. There are some distortions in the current system that essentially give a larger subsidy to people traveling greater distances. While I can see the logic in that, it tends to work against urban transit. Maybe free subway but keep fares on the commuter rail?
If he really wants the
If he really wants the transit rider's vote, maybe he should propose realistic solutions to the real problems facing the average transit rider?
Who the f cares about a
Who the f cares about a bullet train to Springfield?
That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Why are the Republicans trotting out a Pork Project candidate for Senator?
You never know
Built it and they will come :-)
Great idea
I was just thinking the other day how I need a faster way to get to Springfield.
Not.
Just in case
One of the things that makes Boston the Universal Hub is that all the outlying areas roll down hill to us. *You* may not want to go to Springfield, but if you were in Springfield, you might want to come to us. The Senate seat is for ALL of MA, not just Boston. He's trying to appeal to Western MA as a source of votes that he might not be able to attain here in town by giving them a high-speed route to Boston...which could also extend in the opposite direction to Albany, Hartford, and New York (likely via Albany as it's straighter lines that way).
If Obama would like to create a high-speed rail network in the Northeast, then Boston-Springfield/Albany would be one of the best legs to work up first anyways.
Not crazy - crazy smart
Who knew Jack E. Robinson had good ideas?
I've written about this on these boards before, but this is an idea that actually makes a tremendous amount of sense. In fact, it's been endorsed by the Patrick Administration and formally submitted for stimulus funds, and also has the backing of the regional rail consortium.
The key is to understand that the barriers to true high-speed rail service along the northeast corridor are straightening out the tracks and dealing with congestion. The route along the Connecticut shoreline, and on up through Rhode Island, is full of twists and turns. That real estate is incredibly expensive, and even seizing the necessary land through eminent domain would be prohibitively costly, even if there were the political will to do so - which there never will be. The tracks are also extremely congested, used by commuter rail, freight lines, and the 'high speed' service presently offered by Amtrak.
It makes much more sense, logistically, to build a true high-speed line out to Springfield, running down to Hartford, and then hitting the current line in New Haven. The tracks are already there. The right-of-way is of decent width for much of the route, and where it's not, it runs through dilapidated industrial areas and comparatively cheap residential districts. The cities along the route, far from protesting intrusive construction, are much likely to welcome it as heralding renewed relevance and redevelopment. And because it offers something to many folks, and not just to the residents of the coastal cities, it's likely to garner more political support.
If you want actual high-speed rail service between New York and Boston, this is how to get it done. I'm just surprised that a hack like Robinson knows that.
Have you taken the Acela?
Is it your contention that going through Springfield would actually make the trip to NY shorter?
The fastest part of the train is from Boston down to the far RI border, where it goes as fast as 150 mph. The slowest part of the Acela is from New Haven through New Rochelle. The train is limited to 75 mph from New Haven to the NY border and frequently limps to a dead stop in New Rochelle (the Bermuda Triangle of the Acela).
So by rerouting from Boston to New Haven, you'd be replacing the fast part and keeping the slow part. I don't get it. The problem with the line is from New Haven to NYC, not the other end. If you want to improve the Acela's speed, focus on the part with the biggest problem - SW Conn and NY.