“Listen, I run a bus company. We run an efficient bus company that’s headquartered in Springfield, Mass. When you’re looking at publicly subsidized rail service it absolutely can have an impact on our business.”
–Peter Picknelly, CEO Peter Pan Bus Company
Charlie Baker, Governor of Massachusetts, has enjoyed popularity ratings inversely proportional to those of Donald Trump. He’s easily the most popular governor in the United States.
Peter Picknelly, the owner of Peter Pan Bus Lines, is a good business man: he donates to both Republicans and Democrats; he donates to philanthropic causes; and he does his best to boost the down-and-out City of Springfield.
Then candidate Charlie Baker greets Peter Pan Bus Lines owner at a Springfield fundraiser that the businessman held for Baker
Put them together and what do you get?
A transparently, politically cheap move to keep the public good ignorant of the potential benefits of east-west rail service.
Dan Glaun of Masslive has an outstanding, well-researched article on the subject:
Massachusetts State Sen. Eric Lesser’s push to study expanded east-west rail service is facing pushback from Peter Picknelly, the Springfield business leader whose Peter Pan bus company is currently the main provider of mass transit from Springfield to Boston.
Lesser’s (D-Longmeadow) proposal to launch a feasibility study of building higher speed rail across the state won approval from the legislature during budget votes in May and June. But on July 8, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker used his veto powers to amend the measure, changing it from a formal study to a working group that would study bus improvements and other transit options as well.
Two days before Gov. Baker’s veto, Picknelly, a major Springfield employer, philanthropist and state-wide political donor, sent an email to Baker and legislators urging Baker to reject Lesser’s proposal.
In the email, obtained by MassLive, Picknelly describes the proposal as redundant of other ongoing rail studies in the northeast, and argued any study should examine other forms of transport. Rail is expensive and would be no faster than his bus service, he argued.
“I am always disappointed that proposed studies like this only include rail, and never seem to take a comprehensive look at all modes of transportation,” Picknelly wrote. “A balanced approach to transportation would look at a number of alternatives, such as HOV lanes and express bus services.”
But he also cited the threat that an East-West rail line from Springfield to Boston posed to his business.
“I simply can’t see the point of spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars for this kind of rail service, which would adversely impact Peter Pan, an 80-year old, tax-paying business that provides first-class service between Springfield and Boston, and which would also affect the hundreds of good union jobs Peter Pan provides to Western MA area employees,” Picknelly wrote.
To be clear, Baker hasn’t vetoed reviving east-west rail. His veto is much more petty: he’s vetoed the chance for Massachusetts citizens to have more information. Big infrastructure projects aren’t built in a day. Large amounts of money aren’t allocated without trying to figure out whether or not its worth expending. The purpose of a feasibility study is to study the “feasibility” of a project.
Peter Picknelly doesn’t want anything to threaten the profitability of his bus company. Charlie Baker wants to please Peter Picknelly. To do so, he put Picknelly’s interests above the good of the Commonwealth. The sad part is, the stakes of a feasibility study are so small for PIcknelly that Baker’s veto was serious overkill.
Yes, the information is important. Yes, if east-west rail were to become a reality, it might hurt his business. But there are a lot more if’s to throw in there, the biggest being if the Commonwealth can come up with the money.
Sometimes the biggest political mistakes come the pettiest of problems. Peter Picknelly’s problem was petty. Charlie Baker’s mistake is pretty big. He’s been caught servicing one of his fundraisers at the expense of the common good.
PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. IT’S GOOD AND GIVES A RARE GLIMPSE INTO SPRINGFIELD POLITICS AND ONE POWER BROKER.
Because entrenched special interests are worried about losing their existing revenue streams.
It should be a no-brainer to get more rail around this state. Anyone who has driven the Pike, especially at certain times, knows that we have a major problem. If I need to be in Boston, I have to play for a 3-hour trip even though the car ride takes just 90 minutes – because the traffic could be horrendous.
There are so many people driving to Boston, one person to a car. So many cars on the road.
Taking a Peter Pan bus is not a great alternative, which is why the only people who generally do this are those who can’t afford a car, or who aren’t capable of making the drive.
We obviously need to start slowly with bringing rail back. We’re not going to build a bullet train right off the bat – but if a rail option existed that brought people from Springfield to Boston in 90 to 120 minutes, I think this would be a viable route. The current trip takes about 2.5 hours and runs once per day – not really that competitive.
A study would show if such a route makes sense, and could explore ways to make the line faster.
Incremental improvements could then be made. I would love to see a Springfield to Boston route in under an hour. That would take a train traveling at around 90mph. In Europe and China, they are doing 125mph and speeds of 155mph are possible with special tracks.
I think I’ve written this here before — the needed technology is available and has been for decades. It’s easy to get locomotives that can handle 100MPH, and most modern diesels can be geared to handle 125MPH.
The most significant impediment to 100MPH trips today is:
1. Slow-order sections of track
2. Poor track condition because of freight usage
3. Simple scheduling
The state already owns the right-of-way between Worcester and Boston.
As this thread-starter demonstrates, the reason we don’t have 90 minute trips between Springfield and Boston is politics, not technology.
4. Distance between stations.
It takes a train on the order of 8 minutes to reach 100 mph. This depends on whether or not you’ve got a 2 unit (4000 hp) or 3 unit (6000 hp) set of course.
The 90 miles between Springfield and Boston could likely be done in 60 minutes if it were a nonstop run to Back Bay, again, with (1) — (3) above aligned correctly.
I don’t know if I would couch this as “Springfield Politics” – the owner of a Springfield-based bus line is using his direct influence with the governor to get a project squashed. That sounds more like “state politics” to me.
But Picknelly is calling some shots in Springfield and he needs to be called out. This also contradicts his philanthropic reputation. The article lifts the lid and shows us some of the works. It’s about more of than what I quoted.
Knowing Springfield politics, Picknelly (Jr) generally isn’t a puppet-master. He will get involved with deals that specifically involve him (such as the casino), but I haven’t heard him being involved with anything beyond that. He also isn’t nearly as much a philanthropist as his father was (he passed away in 2004).
The entire state needs this link, and it should really join Albany and Boston. While each of us cares about the city or town where we reside, we are all part of a commonwealth — and that word means just what it sounds like.
Our flagship state university, in Amherst, has no rail service whatsoever. Even though it proudly announces its first-university-in-the-state status, it isn’t possible to get to UMASS-Amherst by rail at all. Residents of Springfield and Northampton can apparently get to Burlington VT, NYC and Washington DC by rail (using the “Knowledge Corridor” train), yet still can’t get to Boston. The train reaches the astounding speed of 79MPH, according to some reports. As nearly as I can tell, these rail projects are still vaporware consisting primarily of websites.
The fact that we are are talking about Springfield politics and Boston politics is one of the major failings of our current government.
Our STATE rail system is a disaster and an embarrassment.
How many passengers a day between Boston and Springfield? How many willing to not drive their automobile?
Before a billions investment in rail, it’s good to show there is a need first. The advantage of buses is that they can be scaled up; scaled down easily. Disadvantage is they consume gas; but perhaps they can be made electric buses with a much smaller investment than building rail.
It makes sense to look at buses as alternatives in the transportation study, and compare. I think Baker is doing well to set more reasonable expectations for this transportation study.
Less than 200 a day use new Worc to Boston rail link. (158 in July)
I’d like to see your source for that figure.
Saturday july 30 2016. Strange coincidence they just wrote about it.
Multiple sources like this confirm that the current right-of-way constrains this service to provide one east-bound trip in the morning (leaving Worcester at 8:05a) and one west-bound trip in the evening (departing Boston at 7:35p) (emphasis mine):
If you build a restaurant that is open between 10:45-11:30a for breakfast and 4:30-6:00p for dinner, you’re not going to get many patrons.
The state already owns the right-of-way between Worcester and Boston. The obvious need is to provide additional capacity so that passenger and freight trains can run without interference, and so that express and local passenger trains can be handled.
The Worcester Telegram piece is more positive than your brief mention suggests.
The “200 riders per day” figure is inline with expectations during planning (emphasis mine):
The article notes that schedule reliability has been a concern, because of delays in on-going track maintenance (emphasis mine):
Finally, the importance of trains like this is highlighted in this piece, citing Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce President and CEO (and former Lt. Governor) Tim Murray (emphasis mine):
By that logic, we’d never do the Assembly Square project.
Wonks describe the world, the point is to change it.
It doesn’t sound like you’re paying attention. The cost of actually providing service, with essentially no right-of-way improvements, is $554-650 M according to studies like this. That’s for eight trips per day, each two-hours one-way from Springfield to Boston, with no right-of-way improvements. The time can easily be cut in half by making reasonable investments in right-of-way and scheduling as I noted up-thread.
If you want to talk about spending “billions”, you might start by looking at the state HIGHWAY spending — to the tune of $1.68 BILLION per year.
The first link estimates the annual projected ridership for New Have to Boston at 428,799. Assuming 52 weeks and 5 days a week, that’s 1,649 per day.
The total cost of ownership for rail is compellingly lower than for buses for routes like this. Buses are far more sensitive to weather disruptions, especially during the winter. They use far more energy than rail.
The studies have been done, the technology exists. The facts point towards investing in rail — the issue is to get our government to pay attention to the facts.
to confuse people with facts!
I suspect that more people will use commuting options if made available.
We don’t use HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes up here very much. Buses or full cars could zip by most commuters on the Pike and encourage ride sharing.
Now in Charlotte NC they are looking into expanding the use of HOV lanes to also include HOT (high occupacy or TOLL) passengers. The idea is if you are leaving Bank of America headquarters on a Friday afternoon (by yourself) and don’t want to deal with the traffic which is Boston-like, you hop in the HOV lane but have to pay a special toll. The toll is on a sliding scale which goes up in higher congestion traffic. Fri afternoon leaving the city, pay $10.00 one way, leave on a Tues before 2pm might be only $1.00.
Too elitist? Good money maker? Not for Mass?
We’ve had HOV lanes in the Boston area for decades, with little effect (as far as I can tell). They seem to primarily be an occasional revenue generator when the state decides to enforce them for a day or two.
What we have NOT had, since WWII, is convenient safe and reliable public rail transportation joining Springfield and Boston. That’s what we’re talking about here.
The case for funding public rail transportation is persuasive. The thread-starter shows that the opposition to it is motivated primarily by the complaints of a handful of well-connected individuals like Mr. Picknelly.
It won’t cost billions or millions.