Mass transit plan

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by MadPadraic

I believe that the MBTA operates at a substantial loss. That being said, the purpose of urban and commuter public transit is not to be a cash cow for the government (otherwise, we'd see a very different pricing structure). Suffice it to say that it is necessary to run off peak trains (at a loss) to keep the overall utility level reasonable enough to make the train a viable alternative to driving.

Well, my point was not that the MBTA needs to run at a profit but rather that if the MBTA can not operate in the black, how is a ski train going to do financially.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by MadPadraic

Ok. So Loon is, say, about 2:30 from Boston. You are saying that it would take 4:30 door to door on a train, but less on a bus?

It seems like your setting up straw men. All the "costs" of a train are present on a bus: driving to a station (even if the station is a box store's parking lot), waiting for other passengers (slower on a bus in my experience: there is only one exit in the front and the isle is narrower), waiting for the bus, etc.

I don't see why a ski train to Lincoln would make stops along the way--I'd envision a nroth station departure and one stop in a northern burb to pick up passengers--or the need for a shuttle bus; why would you put the Lincoln station anywhere OTHER than at Loon base (maybe a second stop in North Woodstock).

Even if you did add a stop in Manchester or such, the time needed is really minimal.

As for North Conway, just avoiding that evil traffic would make a transfer entirely worthwhile. I also reject the notion that trains would be slower. Amtrak (regular service, not Acela) is faster from Boston to Providence than a bus, and faster from Providence to Penn station than a bus from Kennedy Plaza to Port Authority. This holds for virtually all hours of the day and night.

All this being said, I agree that buses are much more feasible (because of a lower level of demand) even if they are a much less pleasant experience.

Your example of Loon is quite idealistic. What about Waterville, Cannon, Bretton Woods, etc. which are all along the I-93 corridor? Regarding not that many stops, if the train doesn't stop that often to pick up more passengers, that means the average passenger has to drive further (often in the wrong direction I.E. south) to get to the nearest station. A bus need only stop once to get filled up to capacity. Not sure about speed but I wonder if the current rail situation in New Hampshire could handle high speed rail service. I do know that MBTA is slower than driving by a substantial amount when there is no traffic. The trade offs for avoid North Conway traffic don't add up. Take the side road and you can avoid the worth of NC. Or better yet, head to VT where has better mountains within that same three hour drive to from Boston to NC areas. All things considered, the difference door to door would be substantial and I stand by my +2 hours estimate has being a reasonable estimation.

[bigbob]

It would take a 1000 years to pay off the infrastructure costs for a train to Lincoln, NH ! To low of a volume for what, 3 months of the year. NH has other mass transit projects that are waiting to be funded before this makes the list. Buses are much more flexible and faster to implement. Carpooling, which I already do most weekends, is also something that could start this next winter.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by bigbob

It would take a 1000 years to pay off the infrastructure costs for a train to Lincoln, NH ! To low of a volume for what, 3 months of the year. NH has other mass transit projects that are waiting to be funded before this makes the list. Buses are much more flexible and faster to implement. Carpooling, which I already do most weekends, is also something that could start this next winter.

Good points. Even though many mass transit systems run at a loss, how much tax support would there be for a 3-4 month/year ski train? It wouldn't benefit the vast majority of voters who have much more pressing issues for their tax dollars.

The probability of a ski train is nil, so the focus should be on more realistic approaches. Buses, higher MPG vehicles, and carpooling are some.

[MadPadraic]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

Well, my point was not that the MBTA needs to run at a profit but rather that if the MBTA can not operate in the black, how is a ski train going to do financially.

Well, the MBTA charges artificialy low prices and lacks wage flexibility. So I think that your statement that it cannot operate in the black is misleading: it doesn't by semi-intentional design. It may (or may not) be able to do so. (Of course, in general, American transportation firms tend to fail on a regular basis, so operating in the black for any extended time may not be possible.)

[MadPadraic]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

Your example of Loon is quite idealistic. What about Waterville, Cannon, Bretton Woods, etc. which are all along the I-93 corridor? Regarding not that many stops, if the train doesn't stop that often to pick up more passengers, that means the average passenger has to drive further (often in the wrong direction I.E. south) to get to the nearest station. A bus need only stop once to get filled up to capacity. Not sure about speed but I wonder if the current rail situation in New Hampshire could handle high speed rail service. I do know that MBTA is slower than driving by a substantial amount when there is no traffic. The trade offs for avoid North Conway traffic don't add up. Take the side road and you can avoid the worth of NC. Or better yet, head to VT where has better mountains within that same three hour drive to from Boston to NC areas. All things considered, the difference door to door would be substantial and I stand by my +2 hours estimate has being a reasonable estimation.

All this is rather fanciful, as NH doesn't even have Amtrak service, but since we are having a fun debate...

Making more than one stop to pick up passengers makes no sense at all. Who would be the primary consumer of a ski train or ski bus? (1) People who don't have cars (2) People who feel guilty about driving their cars. (3) People who'd rather ride than drive. In general, your talking about an urban (or at least urbane) population. I suspect that SOMEONE in or near Amherst, New Hampshire would make use of the service, but that doesn't that Amherst, NH should have a stop.


Sure, a stop northwest of Boston makes sense as long as it has a lot of safe parking, but turning an express vehicle into a local would partially defeat the purpose.

For the fictional Lincoln, NH example: the market would fix this over time. If a dedicated train or bus service was popular enough Cannon (assuming freedom to act) or Bretton Woods would find it in their best interest to either pay for an extension or run a shuttle. (Bretton Woods could issue tokens for use on the service, and they could be called the Bretton Woods III standard.) All I know about Waterville is that it is popular and south of loon.

A North Conway service makes more sense due to its greater diversification of activities, higher density, and an existing trolley.

But all this is moot since we are talking about New Hampshire.

Another big flaw in this is that connecting from Providence wouldn't be very workable due to the whole south station/north station thing.

When there is no traffic, cars are going to beat a local MBTA train for two reasons. First, trains move slower in high density areas (not NH). Second, they make local stops.

[MadPadraic]

Originally Posted by Vinny

Good points. Even though many mass transit systems run at a loss, how much tax support would there be for a 3-4 month/year ski train? It wouldn't benefit the vast majority of voters who have much more pressing issues for their tax dollars.

The probability of a ski train is nil, so the focus should be on more realistic approaches. Buses, higher MPG vehicles, and carpooling are some.

Well, the probability of a ski train is greater than nil, because they already exist in the north east (NYC and other minor examples). (So, technically the probability is one.) The probability of seeing one in NH is very very low due to the state's politics--how would a train operator get right of way or even licensed?

Nice buses would be great. If I could find a comfortable bus with regular service to one of the major ski resorts, I'd probably allocate my pass money to that resort. High MPG vehicle? We'll probably see a shift towards them, but I'd personally rather take a train (or equivalent) than drive.

[bigbob]

MadPatric wrote: All this is rather fanciful, as NH doesn't even have Amtrak service, but since we are having a fun debate...

Did you ever hear of the Downeaster, Portland to Boston with stops in NH at Exeter, Durham, and Dover!

[MadPadraic]

Originally Posted by bigbob

MadPatric wrote: All this is rather fanciful, as NH doesn't even have Amtrak service, but since we are having a fun debate...

Did you ever hear of the Downeaster, Portland to Boston with stops in NH at Exeter, Durham, and Dover!

I stand corrected. For some reason or other, I was under the impression that the down easter had stopped servicing NH and was non-stop until Maine. Are connections possible to any ski resorts? Saco isn't that far from some useful hills.

[AndyEich]

Originally Posted by MadPadraic

I believe that the MBTA operates at a substantial loss...

According to an article in the Boston Phoenix 1-2 weeks ago, the loss is only due to debt service that many regard as unfair. The T cost a ton to create (and I assume that's how the principal amount was determined), but it also provides benefits (environmental, economic, etc) that the MBTA cannot collect on. So there are lots of ways to slice it, and it's not clear what portion of that debt is deserved, and what portion the city should pick up.

Originally Posted by MadPadraic

...I also reject the notion that trains would be slower. Amtrak (regular service, not Acela) is faster from Boston to Providence than a bus, and faster from Providence to Penn station than a bus from Kennedy Plaza to Port Authority. This holds for virtually all hours of the day and night...

This is only possible where there are multiple tracks and lots of pull-offs. Virtually every other route is much slower than a car/bus because you have to wait for the freight trains.

I'm actually a big fan of trains, though--wish we could get permission to build more/better tracks so they could thrive.