Yuku free message boards

ckcaney wrote:

---

"One big thing that could easily be done for public transportation right here: Every train that leaves North Station in this direction should split in half at Beverly...one continues to Newburyport, the other to Rockport. This absurd 'every other train to the end of the line' is what stops many folks from taking the train...or, in desperation, they drive to Beverly, struggle to find parking, and get on there. Madness."

That would be ideal, but it's currently not possible as there are single tracks through Salem so the returning trains would converging/waiting on one another. Also, it would double the amount of trains pulling into NS and there isn't enough tracks to support same. Also, there simply aren't enough trains or customers to "pay" for this.

It turns into a chicken/egg story, if you had more trains you'd have more commuters, if you had more commuters, we'd have more trains.

The parking situation at Beverly has vastly improved as of late, but is still not enough. In these times you have to accept that the train yes, it isn't terribly convenient at times, but neither is global warning or gas prices, take your pick! We'll have to suck up some inconveniences.

Also, ease up when comparing Eurorail to the American train systems, the ground that needs to be covered and the density of the population make it a poor comparison.

I think he was saying that the existing trains would divide at Beverly and smaller trains would continue to the two termini, so the track at Salem is a moot point. The number of trains going both ways at Salem would remain the same as now.
More relevant is that each train now has only one engine, so this plan would require a doubling of engines on the Rockport/Newburyport line. Also, the time in Beverly might be extended so long that a backlog might ensue.

Also, I very much doubt that the number of commuters is determined by the number of trains. If more trains cause more train ridership, that just indicates a demand for train travel that isn't being satisfied, AND represents people who are now most likely using a less efficient mode of transport, and the swap to the train would be a major benefit of the plan suggested above.

But nore commuters being created? I very much doubt it.

ckcaney wrote:

---

"Also, I very much doubt that the number of commuters is determined by the number of trains."

Let me rephase. If there were more flexible train schedules, ie: more trains, we'd have more commuters. Whenever I encounter someone who drives into Boston they mention the lack of trains (or lack of flexibility in the train schedule) as their reason for driving in.

Ah, I see,,, you are defining "commuter" as "train rider," for some reason leaving out all the commuters who use other transportation modes (carpool, driving, bus, etc.). I include all those when I say "commuter,". I call the people you refer to "train riders."

Then I see absolutely no problem. The whole point of the suggestion was to make the train more usable to more people. That means they would be using a more-efficient mode of transportation instead of a less-efficient kind. That would be a Good Thing.