Northern Tier Passenger Rail Study: It's Not Worth It

Sometimes advocates need to recognize when a proposal is not viable and pick their battles

When Massachusetts committed to the next expansion of their passenger train network being East - West Rail from Boston - Pittsfield, a group of advocates and lawmakers convinced the state to study restoring service west of Fitchburg along the former Pan Am Southern main line as well. I took a deep personal interest, attending discussion meetings and waiting on every update, because it’s literally close to home. The nearest railroad track to my hometown is the former Pan Am Southern main line in Ashburnham and I’ve taken the MBTA commuter rail to Boston more times than I can count. Two days ago, MassDOT posted the final report for the Northern Tier Passenger Rail study. Needless to say, the results are not hopeful. It was a long shot proposal and I am not surprised that it will certainly not move forward.

The last named train to service this route was the Boston and Maine’s Minute Man from Boston - Troy, NY, discontinued in 1958 when the company slipped into unprofitability. That is, incidentally, the same year the New Haven abandoned most service on the Old Colony Lines in Southeast Massachusetts, rural Connecticut, and Rhode Island. To understand why I had my doubts about reviving service in the Northern Tier it is important to know that the Minute Man was the first mainline B&M train to be cut, years before their trains to all of Central Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the White Mountains. This was not a random decision.

Lawmakers in North Adams joined with advocates to point out that beginning in the 1990’s, Massachusetts has spent significant amounts on restoring service in the rest of the state. The MBTA has spent billions restoring the Old Colony Lines out of South Station, MassDOT spent hundreds of millions upgrading the Connecticut River Line and adding new services through Springfield, and now they are prepared to spend more again on East-West Rail. I understand, as a former elected member of town government, that your constituents and their interests come first. But therein lies the problem.

Since 1958, the towns and cities along the rails south and West of Boston have grown by hundreds of thousands of people. In the late 50’s, the South Coast towns of Massachusetts were rural farming communities full of cranberry bogs and dairy farms. Today, they are the wealthiest bedroom communities in the state commuting to Boston’s financial district. Similarly, Springfield and Worcester have remained major cities and regional centers with large populations. But North Adams has lost almost half of it’s population, from 21,567 residents in 1950 to a mere 12,961 in 2020. Gardner and Fitchburg have remained stagnant or declined in the same period.

Put simply: The Minute Man served an inadequate population for service in 1958, never mind 2024.

The study evaluated six alternatives, all slower than an automobile.

All of the six alternatives assumed North Adams - Boston service via the Hoosac Tunnel, with the fifth continuing to Albany, NY. The most effective option by ridership is full local service to all communities along the route, but for the $1.5 billion dollar price tag the Commonwealth could do a lot better than 168,040 to 255,460 riders per year at 60 MPH. To put this in perspective, the new Borealis train from Minneapolis to Chicago will carry similar ridership with only one train per day each direction for a cost of only $53.3 million. The ROI makes no sense no matter how you cut it for Massachusetts.

This does raise a serious gripe with this study that, to me, points to a lack of vision: MassDOT studied electrified service, but they didn’t study restored MBTA commuter rail to Gardner or extended service to Greenfield for transfers. Worse, it also contained no discussion of potential Boston-Montreal service, studied in 2016, which would make this project eligible for a more diverse set of FRA grants since they designated Boston - Montreal a High Speed Rail corridor in 2011. When studied, Boston-Montreal was projected to have 447,100 riders a year for one train per day each direction. This would make it one of the most well ridden single trip routes in the entire continent. Proper Boston - Montreal service would use the NH Capitol Corridor via Concord, NH but nonetheless service via Greenfield vs Springfield should have been discussed.

It’s been a long ten years since this map first was made in 2015

Sometimes I like to dabble in fantasies, as all railroad enthusiasts do. Let us imagine the following as a hypothetical Alternative 7: Boston - Montreal, two trains per day each direction, via Greenfield with additional stations in Orange, Athol, Gardner, Fitchburg, Ayer, Littleton, Porter, and Boston. The Vermonter route would require little to no additional infrastructure between Greenfield and St. Albans. The tracks from St. Albans to the Canadian Border were already upgraded for future passenger rail use and in 2024 the tracks were upgraded on the Canadian side as well. I am very curious what the cost would be to upgrade the Wachusett - Greenfield section of track and operate train service. Almost half a million people would ride the train, while connecting the Northern Tier with two major destinations for a far greater economic impact at a fraction of the cost per rider.

To me, this is the obviously superior option.

Of course, this will all remain nothing but daydreams for decades. The first priority for Massachusetts will be East West Rail for the foreseeable future and I am in full support. But if we are going to envision passenger trains past Fitchburg, it makes the most sense to picture them howling north toward Montreal through Vermont rather than fighting freight trains for access to the Hoosac Tunnel and paying CSX for the trouble. I wish advocates the best of luck, but sometimes it’s time to admit defeat and switch tracks. If a train runs past Fitchburg at any point in the future it would be a shame if it didn’t continue on, not to North Adams (population 12,961) but to Montreal (population 2,124,865). Any investment otherwise is not serving the public interest and should not move forward.