
Let’s improve commuter rail service between Providence and Boston - chmaynard
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/dear-gov-raimondo-express-trains-wrong-ask/
======
davexunit
I would love for MA to improve the Worcester-Framingham commuter rail line,
too. The infrastructure feels so dated. The trains are slow, infrequent, and
are late or broken too often, so I just drive in the terrible Boston traffic
instead. I would love to take the train if I could. Even the fastest train
from Worcester to Boston, a single express train, takes an hour. But most
likely your schedule can't align with that train (I wouldn't get on at the
terminal station so I can't ride it) so you have to take an even slower one.

~~~
ng12
The Fitchburg line is even worse because you have to slog through the Concord
rotary if you chose to drive. I'd love to see the face on one of my
Californian friends driving on Route 2 -- nowhere else have I ever encountered
a 55mph highway that ends at a stoplight.

~~~
jcranmer
Breezewood, PA is pretty infamous: I-70 has a stoplight with US-30, where you
turn right, go through a second stoplight, turn right again, and then get back
on I-70. It and the I-78 approach to the Holland Tunnel are the only two
places where the interstate has a traffic light, although the road is 35mph
immediately in front of it in PA (I don't know what the speed limit of the NJ
road is).

Freeways ending in stoplights are actually fairly common, although they
usually have lots of advance warning saying "FREEWAY ENDS." 50mph and 55mph
roads having stoplights on them aren't particularly uncommon, particularly in
rural areas.

~~~
smoyer
I70 joins I76 (the Pennsylvania turnpike) in Breezewood, so traffic would be
slowed at the toll-booths even if a proper intersection was built. I suspect
that there was some political wrangling that resulted in the US30 transition
though - the truck-stops, restaurants and tourist-traps are loving it!

------
chmaynard
I'm posting this editorial because CalTrain riders need to know that commuter
rail in New England faces many of the same problems. CalTrain also has the
additional challenge of eliminating its grade crossings. The cost of that
improvement would probably bankrupt CalTrain, but it needs to happen.

~~~
idreyn
It actually will happen, eventually, as a result of the California HSR
project: [http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/grade-separation-
de...](http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/grade-separation-decadal-
view.html)

------
niftich
These are good recommendations, because in the greater scheme of things these
are (relatively) small expenditures that can greatly improve level-of-service.

Many European commuter rail systems -- or mainline rail segments that end up
hosting predominantly commuter traffic --- run EMUs and have renovated their
stations with level-boarding platforms.

------
kevinburke
Advocating for these types of boring improvements is a good way to make a
difference with your local City Council or transit organization.

------
bkeroack
In my experience, Boston to Providence is pretty fast and pleasant. The issue
is the rest of the way to NYC, which crawls through Connecticut at a snail's
pace and takes something like 3.5 hours. It's a pretty brutal trip.

~~~
sitkack
At least it isn't Fung Wah.

~~~
roymurdock
RIP $5 Boston-> NYC trips with dudes literally getting on the bus carrying
chickens in cages

[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/fung-wah-bus-
comp...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/fung-wah-bus-company-
closes-doors-good-n394026)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
This.

If you were willing to put up with the downsides the price couldn't be beat.

------
yosito
My understanding is that the reason the US doesn't have better rail service is
because the auto industry lobbies the government to direct subsidies toward
roads rather than railways. I've seen many cities wanting to improve commuter
rail services, but until we get rid of the auto industry's influence, this is
an uphill battle.

~~~
Aloha
Rail service isn't practicable in most of the country, even at 200 miles an
hour, NY to Chicago is still a long long trip.

~~~
krallja
At 200 miles an hour, NY to Chicago is less than four hours.

It takes about an hour total for transportation between downtowns and the
airports; you need to be at the airport about an hour ahead of your flight;
the flight itself is 2 and a half hours.

So, a 200mph train would be _faster_ for most travelers.

~~~
jcranmer
> At 200 miles an hour, NY to Chicago is less than four hours.

Assuming you can a) maintain that speed the entire length and b) there are no
stops along the route. A long-distance point-to-point HSR system is simply not
cost-effective, particularly when you've got a geographic barrier like the
Appalachians. That's what makes Chicago so problematic for HSR: the Midwest
ends up being a region where no city is particularly close to being "on the
way" between any other city pairing.

~~~
dheera
The Appalachians aren't particularly an insurmountable barrier. Japan,
Switzerland, China, and France all have much bigger and more formidable
mountains than the Appalachians.

The real problem is:

\- Not enough government funding for mass transit projects

\- Not enough people supporting government funding

\- Too much power at the city level and not enough power at the state/national
level for transportation projects

\- Terrible UX and not enough city-level public transit infrastructure. When
you exit the train station in most of the above countries, you are greeted
with a properly air-conditioned/heated waiting hall, delicious food, hotels
within walkable distance, and buses/subway to anywhere you would need to go.
In a LOT of US cities when you exit the train station you are greeted with a
massive parking lot and not even so much as a restroom. (Okay, Boston, New
York, Chicago, and Washington are fine, but they are quite the exception. Most
other cities suck.) Even if California gets the high-speed rail going any time
soon to Los Angeles, the fact is that it's stupidly hard to get around
anywhere in LA without a car, so I don't imagine it getting much ridership
until that problem is solved (maybe by autonomous cars, maybe not).

~~~
jcranmer
Appalachians aren't insurmountable as a geographic barrier, particularly
because there's a very easy topographical shortcut by going next to the Erie
Canal. What makes it really challenging is the lack of lesser-tier cities to
plug into the network, combined with the sheer length.

Put another way, the distance between Chicago and New York is roughly 700mi as
the crow flies. The distance between Edinburgh and London is 330mi, Calais and
Marseilles 550mi, Zurich and Copenhagen 600mi, Milan and Calabria 600mi,
Shanghai and Beijing 650mi, Hiroshima and Sendai 530mi. You're looking at a
distance that's longer literally than the longest axis of most European
countries, and at a much more sparsely populated region than the linear
corridors of other countries that have axes that long.

NY/Chicago is on the edge of viability in terms of distance. As the crow
flies, you're talking a 3½ hour trip minimum; as you actually build it, a non-
stop express is looking like at least 4-4½ hours. The most feasible route with
intermediate stops (via Pittsburgh and Philly) is around 860 miles, an even
longer trip. If the trip were on pretty much flat, featureless terrain, the
cost and time could both be kept small, but the mountainous terrain means
you're generally on the worse ends of the estimate.

That's the biggest problem with the US: our cities are just simply too far
apart for HSR to be viable in most of the country. And where they aren't, they
tend to be in the worst pattern for utilizing HSR effectively.

~~~
wbl
We put a man on the moon, and you're telling me we can't make a train go
faster than the Shanghai maglev?

~~~
niftich
There is not much point; the engineering and construction is extremely
expensive (and more so in the US [1][2][3][4][5][6]), and there's perfectly
good sunk-cost airports that let airlines operate this route at a variety of
price-points today.

[1] [https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/4/this-is-why-
inf...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/4/this-is-why-
infrastructure-is-so-expensive) [2]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-
s-i...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-
infrastructure-costs-so-much) [3] [http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/us-
infrastructure-renewal-buil...](http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/us-
infrastructure-renewal-building-transportation-donald-trump/) [4]
[https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/7-reasons-us-
infrastruc...](https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/7-reasons-us-
infrastructure-projects-cost-way-more-they-should/8799/) [5]
[http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-
bridg...](http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridge-
america) [6]
[http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/blog/is-u.s.-infrastructure-m...](http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/blog/is-u.s.-infrastructure-
more-expensive)

~~~
wbl
Sounds like the US needs to stop sucking at this.

------
chmaynard
I'm traveling to Norway soon for a short vacation and I'm looking forward to
using Oslo's public transit and regional rail network. Apparently it's an
award-winning, world-class system.

~~~
dheera
Most Northern European systems are absolutely amazing. Not only do things just
work, but their attention to detail and design is also top-notch. In most
places the fonts, kerning, colors, lighting, everything is just very pleasing
to the graphic designer eye. Sometimes you feel like you've stepped into an
app.

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
Indeed. Take for example the City Tunnel in Malmö which finished ahead of time
and a million dollars under budget[1]. At Triangeln it has dancing lights on
the walls that are somewhat mesmerizing[2].

1:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Tunnel_(Malmö)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Tunnel_\(Malmö\))

2:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k6tJb9TwY1k](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k6tJb9TwY1k)

~~~
Sharlin
> a million dollars under budget

A _hundred_ million, surely? 1e9 SEK under the projected cost of 9.5e9 SEK.

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
Whoops you are correct, dropped a zero or two there. Makes it even more
impressive.

------
dsfyu404ed
This is all fine and good. Just don't improve it between Boston and any city
you expect people to be able to afford to buy a house in.

------
tabeth
I'm 100% against new tracks being laid or any more capital expenditures to the
MBTA (anyone who goes on the Red Line during rush hour, or the commuter rail
during the winter knows it sucks). The current system needs better
maintenance, first.

Here's one solution: create a new express lane on existing highways by
removing a lane or repurposing the existing HOV lane. Make this new lane have
a 80mph speed limit. Only allow buses. There you go.

This would have a higher average speed than all existing public transportation
systems in the United States. No need to build any rail.

\---

As long as "undesirables" can easily go to your town via public
transportation, NIMBYs will shut it down. See the Red Line extension to
Arlington. Those folks are regretting that now.

Disclaimer: I live in Massachusetts -- both the above, and the OP will never
happen. It's just _too hard_ to justify the capital expenses. In the case of
improved service you would think it's easy, but once you consider the commuter
rail is already underutilized it's hard to imagine.

Heck, they were even going to end weekend service for the commuter rail.

[http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/03/13/mbta-weekend-commuter-
ra...](http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/03/13/mbta-weekend-commuter-rail-premium-
ride-trip-cuts)

~~~
crzwdjk
The point is that the rail is already there, and the rail line is already
pretty much the best in the US, and already has electrification, that the
commuter rail trains don't use for entirely stupid reasons. And sure, buses
are great, but one comumter rail train carries the same number of passengers
as literally 20 buses. Given that the tracks to Providence are already there,
some relatively minor improvements can make the trains suck much less. Your
bus idea on the other hand seems like a good alternative to the South Coast
Rail boondoggle.

~~~
tabeth
Sure, but why should the MBTA care about the Providence Line in particular, as
opposed to say, Worcester or other parts of Massachusetts?

~~~
srj
It's the most traveled line.

~~~
tabeth
Sure, but by that logic, why not extend rapid transit -- it's far more
traveled than all of the commuter rail lines combined.

