KEN PATRICK » Thu May 03, 2012 11:45 am
why did i get castigated for suggesting the Fitchburg lay-over yard be in Gardner rather than Westminster? I opined that such layover siting would permit cr to travel to worcester as a means of balancing equipment as well as attracting ridership with select offerings. Also, cr North Station via Gardner can't be more than 45 minutes longer than Worcester to South Station. Ken Patrick
jaymac wrote:KEN PATRICK » Thu May 03, 2012 11:45 am
why did i get castigated for suggesting the Fitchburg lay-over yard be in Gardner rather than Westminster? I opined that such layover siting would permit cr to travel to worcester as a means of balancing equipment as well as attracting ridership with select offerings. Also, cr North Station via Gardner can't be more than 45 minutes longer than Worcester to South Station. Ken Patrick
I can't, so I won't speak for anyone else, but I will ask if you are the same KEN PATRICK who was against raising Northern Tier standards in the Commonwealth to 286K because of cost. If you are the same KEN PATRICK, how do you deal with the inconsistency of calling for one cost-saving while arguing for the PW Gardner Branch to be upgraded to a commuter branch? If you urge sensitivity for the residents of Westminster, where is similar sensitivity for the residents of Holden, Princeton, and Hubbardston? Unless and until major money is spent on reestablishing double track between CPF-335 and CPF-345. Without demolishing some business along the ROW in Gardner, the seems no place for a layover facility. There also seems little place for parking. The planned Wachusett intermodal node and Westminster layover facility address those concerns, although not to your liking.
KEN PATRICK wrote:the isolated, fallow parcel in gardner- north of 2, east of the pw gardner branch and adjacent to pas would be a low cost approach for a layover yard. taking taxpaying industrial land in westminster is simply foolish. a connection to the gardner branch would create a cr loop for the fitchburg and worcester lines.similar in concept to the discussions re: framingham-clinton-worcester but far less costly. i submit upgrading the Gardner branch for cr would be trivial.
my comments on 286 are based on the fact that all existing rail structure is 286. the 263 imposed by mbta is simply fiat. no public money should be spent 'upgrading' . ken patrick
SpiderHill wrote:In any case, the Central Mass will never be able to be connected to the Fitchburg Secondary if the parcel sells.
SpiderHill wrote:In any case, the Central Mass will never be able to be connected to the Fitchburg Secondary if the parcel sells.
EdSchweppe wrote:SpiderHill wrote:In any case, the Central Mass will never be able to be connected to the Fitchburg Secondary if the parcel sells.
Considering the elevation difference between the Central Mass roadbed and the Fitchburg Secondary at West Berlin, who'd want to connect the two?
Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Users browsing this forum: Red Wing, RenegadeMonster, Type 7 3684 and 11 guests