News

The Case Against The Knowledge Corridor Rail System

Blake Lamothe, chair of the Palmer Redevelopment Authority, argues against the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission's train plans for the Connecticut River Valley.

Comments (8)
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Photo By Mark Roessler
Blake Lamothe stands outside the Palmer Union Station in the location he would like a station stop located to reconnect his town to passenger service.

In response to the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission's (PVPC) "Knowledge Corridor" study, which advocates re-routing Amtrak's Vermonter rail service via the Massachusetts towns along the Connecticut River to increase its speed and number of passengers, Blake Lamothe, the chair of the Palmer Redevelopment Authority, has been promoting his "Population Corridor" plan for rail service.

His plan, Lamothe says, is to capitalize on improving and expanding an existing rail infrastructure, whereas the PVPC plan is "hypothetical" and, Lamothe says, "will become a failure for the state." The PVPC plan attempts to improve only north-south transit, but the Palmer plan tries to improve it in all directions. Not counting Springfield (which figures in both plans), the PVPC plan serves tens of thousands of people who live in the towns along the river; the "Population Corridor" plan was given its name because, says Lamothe, it would serve several times that many who live between Boston and Springfield, Amherst and New London, Conn.

Opening Palmer to passengers, Lamothe estimates, will cost about a million dollars and could be completed in months, as opposed to the $30 million, multi-year PVPC plan. While he is not against an eventual rail route that takes passengers through Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield, Lamothe points out that most successful passenger services began after freight service had already been successfully established. The all-but-abandoned line along the Connecticut River is vulnerable to flooding, and nearly every bridge and the approximately 54 rail crossing would need to be updated or replaced. Lamothe says he thinks the cost would be closer to $100 million.

Further, the towns along the river are already served by the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority bus system (Greenfield will soon be building a $12.8 bus transit hub), which does not exist in the places Lamothe's plan seeks to serve. PVPC plans to incorporate the busses into the train system, but Lamothe says they will be two publicly funded transit systems in competition with one another.

Finally, Lamothe points out that the PVPC's "Knowledge Corridor" plan began as a response to the state of Vermont's desire to speed up transit through Massachusetts and attract more passengers. (Vermont currently pays for Amtrak's Vermonter run from St. Albans to Washington, D.C.) While this might be an understandable goal for Vermont, Lamothe asks, "Why would [Massachusetts] support such a huge in-state investment to save out-of-state travelers [time] passing through our state?"

Comments (8)
Post a Comment
Whoa! Since when did we allow one selfish indiviudal and town to derail an entire upgrade and redesign that will benefit the greater good of the entire region? This man should hang his head in shame, he knows full well the damage he is doing by trying to hijack a project that would benefit the entire region for just his town's benefit. I have seen the monster that needs defeating, and it is Blake Lamothe, today's honourary recipient of the too greedy and selfish to be allowed further public office award. We will not allow parochial concerns to upset a well crafted, logical, redesign of a system that despite his perspective, is not designed to serve Palmer alone. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of Palmer.
Posted by Greg on 6.3.09 at 6:17
Greg, Why such invective? Where do you live? Are you & if you are, what is your involvement in this planning process? Curious because your comments are so strongly worded. Thank you.
Posted by Richard Stowe on 6.3.09 at 9:56
I live in Northampton and greatly look forward to the return of rail service North and South. Further, we camp in VT all summer long, and would love the oppurtunity to ride the Vermonter to go camping, eliminating the emission from our motor vehicle. I am not against establishing additional east west rail service, in fact I think it would be a great addition (and consolation prize to Palmer) to the knowledge corridor changes. I would so love to simply take the train all the way to Boston and bypass the driving nightmare that is the Pike. As far as the reason for the invective, I find no crime worse than those who seek to subvert the good natured improvement plans of an entire region, simply for what appears to the benefit of a single town and even more- it's clear LaMothe has his own business (which by the way I've been to several times and loved it!) interests in play as well, which hardly makes him impartial and lends to the stink of potential conflict of interest cronyism, I am all for allowing him to make his point in the media, but it does seem a bit ironic that the person who would benefit the most, is the one screaming to derail (sorry, couldn't avoid the pun) the proposed redesign project.
Posted by Greg on 6.4.09 at 5:54
Two trains a day already go past Palmer. Were the Vermonter moved, one would still pass by once a day. The Lake Shore Limited could include a stop in Palmer, which would offer connections to Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Albany, and on to Chicago. Additionally, a connection to Springfield would allow connection that the Vermonter presently makes. I think this is a situation where we can have our cake and eat it too. However, the LSL needs some serious improvements, too. Possibly improving the track from Palmer to Springfield (re-double tracking for starts) could go a long way and be in both Palmer and the PVPC's interests.
Posted by Matt S on 6.4.09 at 11:06
The obvious idea is to try to make this a winning situation for as many of our population as possible using the initial marginal stimulus dollars. Our legislators already realize this. I know that Blake and his wife Robin struggled for almost 20 years to create what they now have and should not be criticized simply because some perceive they'll get someting out of this which they are rightly entitled to as business people just because they're in the right place to do so. As Mark Roessler pointed out this is far finer than the vending machines at Springfield. The PVPC's proposal is a good one simply from a logistics aspect. But we can't overlook the 30,000 plus UMass and Amherst College students almost within walking distance of their station and who live in areas all across the state including the metro-Boston area. Here's where our legislators should be working at consolidating all of the possibilities to even extend the MBTA from Worcester to Springfield to serve the greatest needs for two highly important transportation corridors. That missing commuter link between Springfield and Worcester to include Palmer and several other towns has been recognized and while the PVPC plan may move forward, the missing link might possibly not be very far behind.
Posted by Phil on 6.4.09 at 19:59
As I wrote here and in the Gazette a couple weeks ago, we should be working together to re-establish the web of passenger rail links that can serve the diverse transportation needs of the Valley. Just a casual glance at the UMass campus, with its parking lots' tens-of-thousands of cars, shows there is a problem here: if there were an easier way to get to and from the Amherst-Noho to the Boston metro area many of those cars would not be needed any more, and that way is most likely going to involve regular trains between Springfield, Worcester and Boston, with a stop in Palmer and rail shuttle to and from Amherst. Similarly, for folks who commute south from this area, and there are many thousands per day who do so, adding rail service on the line through Northampton, Greenfield and Holyoke makes sense. (The occasional Vermont-bound camper would also be served, but to build a rail line for that alone is probably not what the PVPC has in mind ;-) At any rate, folks should keep in mind how fragile the coalition is to get ANY kind of investment in improved rail service out here will be (most Massachusetts money for transportation stays in the Boston-MBTA service area, and we are very lucky to have the help of Vermont and Connecticut for north-south service) so let work together to make sure it's not a question of "either-or" but rather how to get BOTH east-west and north-south service improved.
Posted by Rob Kusner on 6.8.09 at 7:58
Most of the parking provided on campus at UMASS are for the daily commuters, most of whom live within a 25 mile radius (at least in my days it was). Can we get some hard figures from the PR dept/parking dept at UMASS on the amount of non-commuter parking lots and even say, the volume of student cars registered in counties other than Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire? That would give us a great objective picture of the real situation.
Posted by Greg on 6.8.09 at 9:11
Preventing the PVPC plan to rehab and use the river tracks would be detrimental to the town of Palmer. The current route through Palmer adds 50 minutes and a reverse move to the trip, reducing the number of passengers, revenue and long-term sustainability of the Vermonter route. The fact is Amtrak's goal is to provide decent train service on a regional/long-distance level, not local service to small towns. The appropriate region in this case is not Palmer and/or Amherst, but New England and New York City. By fighting against the river route, Lamothe is fighting against a small change that would make passenger rail in N.E. more viable and sustainable. Instead he should be advocating for a stop on the LSL and for an extension of the MBTA commuter rail to Springfield (possibly with some trains to Amherst as well), both of which would stop in Palmer and provide a connection to Springfield and the Vermonter. Both of those routes are much more logical and sustainable for the town considering the layout of the rail lines. Bus service and routes can be added, changed and dropped cheaply and easily compared to rail routes which take years and years, and for that reason what bus service goes where shouldn't even factor into the considerations here. Whenever population numbers are thrown around, keep in mind the thousands of Vermonters and NYC and CT folk and others for whom the better route obviously runs along the river. Making a regional decision like this based on the needs of one or a few small towns is almost certainly doomed to failure.
Posted by Scott C on 6.14.09 at 21:03
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Pro-Choice Choices
Imperium Watch: Let's Get Back to Making Things
We let our manufacturing sector dry up at our peril.
American Catechism
Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules examines American orthodoxy and global warfare
Voters, Fasten Your Seatbelts
Jill Stein is finally in the gubernatorial debates--and she's got a lot to say.
Down to the Wire
Between the Lines: Changes
A note from the editor
Letters: What Do You Think?
This week: No Contest in D.A.'s Race; No Free Lunch; Greenfield Needs Facts, Not Opinion; Of BP and Vermont Yankee; and Letter About Letters
Success for Story's Bill for New Mothers