Transportation talk is in the air today. This week’s issue of the Reminder features a front-page piece about regional commuter rail, with a mention of this month’s briefing (PDF) from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, as well as a few quotes from the PVPC’s transit planner Timothy Doherty. From the piece, by G. Michael Dobbs:
The proposed line would create an additional rail link between the cities in what is known as the expanded Knowledge Corridor. …Peter Picknelly, chairman of [Springfield-based] Peter Pan Bus Lines, voiced his opposition earlier in the year to the proposed commuter service. …[He] based his remarks on… experience in Worcester where the company’s once thriving commuter bus service had to be discontinued due to expanded state-subsidized rail service to Boston. …
[Timothy Doherty] said there have already been negotiations between the state of Connecticut and the management of Amtrak over the combination of the Amtrak schedule in the area and the commuter schedule so the two would complement one another. He noted that Amtrak does not provide commuter service, but that its Northeast Corridor operations feed into its national system.
Doherty doesn’t believe the commuter rail line would put Peter Pan out of business. He believes the rail line "will not harm, but enhance existing services."
An article also appeared in today’s Republican, similar to what was printed in a May 21 piece: the PVPC recommends New Haven–Hartford–Springfield commuter rail; Picknelly opposes it. From the article, by Stan Freeman:
"These would not be new customers (commuting by rail). You’d just be taking people off the buses and putting them onto heavily subsidized trains," [Peter Picknelly] said. "When our city is in financial chaos and we don’t have money for police, firefighters and school teachers, to spend that kind of money on service that is already existing makes no sense."
Indeed, the rail line, as currently proposed, would rely heavily on public subsidies. Passenger fares would cover only an estimated 11 percent of the cost to operate the lines, with the rest coming from the state coffers. Massachusetts’ share of the annual operating expense would be an estimated $1 million.
The news is not Picknelly’s viewpoint, which appears unchanged, but rather the fact that the PVPC’s briefing document provides additional projections on how the commuter rail project could positively impact the regional economy.
Unnecessarily searching for "opposing" viewpoints (a better approach would be to explore the nuances of how we can get this done efficiently), the article references a September study (PDF) by the Cambridge-based Rappaport Institute, which cast a skeptical eye on the benefits of commuter rail for eastern Massachusetts communities. Enhanced commuter rail did no particular harm, the study indicated, but the economic impact seemed negligible.
My take: eastern and western Massachusetts are very, very different economically and demographically. The regional economy here in the "knowledge corridor" is not yet well-established in practical terms. It’s unconvincing to compare the prospects of commuter rail here to the specifics of what happened in Boston, for better or for worse. We may as well compare our region to any region, anywhere, in looking at how the economy could be impacted by commuter rail.
The Associated Press apparently picked up the Republican‘s story today, choosing to run it excerpted (sans Picknelly’s comments) in some papers; the Hartford Courant‘s version includes Connecticut-specific details.
In MassLive.com’s Springfield forum, poster "NoPol" took issue with Picknelly’s statements in today’s Republican article, and wrote:
Picknelly’s analysis is inaccurate because he neglects to mention how the state highway system is also "subsidized"—gas taxes alone do not pay for all costs associated with it, and billions upon billions of federal dollars went into constructing it, and the only reason the per-"rider" operating subsidy is so low is that highways are well above the critical mass needed to be profitable.
Poster "taxoholic" added to the discussion with a link to a September 2004 newsletter (PDF) from engineering and planning firm Wilbur Smith Associates, based in New Haven, all about the proposed commuter rail project.
Elsewhere in today’s transportation news, the Hartford Courant published an editorial criticizing the state government’s approach to publicity (or lack of it) for a new, additional parking facility at New Haven’s Union Station—saying that if we don’t allow them to park, they won’t come. Also in today’s Courant, an article appears about the state Department of Transportation‘s recent findings: last year, high gas prices made a big difference in encouraging driving commuters to use the high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Legally, that is. (Incidentally, higher gas prices may not hurt Peter Pan in the long run, either.)
For more on Springfield’s regional transportation needs, check out parts 1, 2 and 3 of my interview with Timothy Brennan, PVPC executive director.
