posted
Here's a link to a "local" article about the success of the Downeaster. I guess the state of New Hampshire takes its motto "Live Free or Die" seriously when it comes to Amtrak.
posted
That article showed up in the Boston paper this morning, too. I don't know whether 500,000 passengers is a real success or not, but if it is the whole definition of a corridor might need re-examining. I don't think of Portland as a major population center; you can drive between Boston and Portland faster than the train. Nevertheless, the load factor has been pretty good right from day one. As far as NH goes, it's more a question of, "We don't have to contribute, cause it's gonna get built anyway." And they get 3 stops besides: Durham is the University of NH, and Exeter has become a bedroom community for Boston, and it's all free!
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
As far as NH goes, it's more a question of, "We don't have to contribute, cause it's gonna get built anyway." And they get 3 stops besides: Durham is the University of NH, and Exeter has become a bedroom community for Boston, and it's all free!
Exactly my point. Kind of a "trickle down" economic theory as regards transportation.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Downeaster is only 10 years old? Wow, I thought it had been around longer than that.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was also surprised that the Downeaster has only been running for 10 years. But the article says that it took 13 years to get the Downeaster going, so we've been hearing about it for a total of 23 years.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
T Black - While one can drive from Portland to Boston faster than the train - why would you want to.
Cost of parking (if you can find it near where you are going) makes the cost of a train ticket very attractive.
MA drivers are the worst in the country (and I grew up in RI). I prefer a less stressful train ride.
While I love the city - I wisely leave the driving there either to Peter Pan (bus company) or Amtrak.
Dee -- (who is trying to combine a trip to visit "rellies" in ME with a Celtics Game this winter).
Posts: 460 | From: North Central CT | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dee, Thanks for your response. If your destination is Portland or Boston, you probably wouldn't want your car. But if you're going to Prout's Neck or Waltham, a car might be handy. My point, though, was to point out that, given the success of this route, the argument that "you can get there faster in a car" doesn't seem applicable in this case. TB
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DeeCT: Cost of parking (if you can find it near where you are going) makes the cost of a train ticket very attractive.
Very much also applies to San Francisco. Why living here without a car makes sense.
quote:MA drivers are the worst in the country (and I grew up in RI). I prefer a less stressful train ride.
I would think that the San Francisco drivers could give them a good run for it. Actually, it is not so much bad as simply inept. There are a goodly number of drivers on teh streets here that act like they got their drivers license by corespondence and that it arrived yesterday. But then there are also the bicyclist that thiink the sidewalks belong to them and will yell at the pedestrians for interfering with them. There was even a not so elderly woman that died from injuries after being hit by a bicycle a few weeks back.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
