After a big crowd to begin the second half, new Revolution stadium still in need

By Zachary Baru

The New England Revolution of Major League Soccer continued the second half of the season July 25 with a massive crowd, begging the question, is a new stadium truly in need?  Ask most soccer fans in New England, and you will receive a dominate yes.  But the debate is still a legitimate one.  Let's explore.

Jumping to the conclusion that most fans prefer a new stadium would not do justice to the truth.  Can you really poll the thoughts of an entire regional sports fan base?  The answer here most likely is no.  One must still look at the pros and cons of the new proposed stadium in Everett, just outside of Boston.

2026 Attendance Numbers

Let's first look at the facts: in the second home game after MLS' World Cup break, the Revs were welcomed back to their long-time home of Gillette Stadium in front of a crowd of 34,428 fans.  This indeed was a great crowd for the Revs, and playing on a Saturday night did not hurt, either.  

In the Revs' first home game back from the break, the crowd was a bit different - 17,249.  This, however, was a mid-week Wednesday night game, which will always change the expected attendance.  Most recently, on August 8, a Saturday night, the Revs drew 22,038 fans at Gillette Stadium.  

So let's look at the numbers.  Yes, the 34,000 crowd is a very large, excellent crowd.  A mid-week game drew a more modest crowd of 17,000, but still more fans than an average NBA or NHL game (outside of Boston).  There are two scenarios here: first, deciding the Revolution need a stadium as large as their current one at Gillette Stadium, for these largely attended games.  And second, deciding the Revolution need a new stadium, which has already been determined, which will be approximately 25,000 seats. 

Is a New Stadium the Right Move? 

If you side with the latter, than yes, for the big games, you are sacrificing larger crowds.  You are capping the stadium at around 25,000, and you are giving up these big games, some of which may be U.S. National Team friendlies or exhibitions from international clubs.  These games can draw well over 30,000 fans potentially.  But with this option you are allowing your average game, where there may be around 20,000 or so fans, to have a much better atmosphere.  

If you are drawing crowds of 80% or even 100% to capacity, there is no question the atmosphere will be better than playing in a stadium of 64,000 (the capacity of Gillette Stadium).  At 64,000, even a large crowd, might still be around 50% capacity.

New Stadium, New Transit Options

One last piece of the puzzle, which may in fact be the main reason for the Revs seeking a new stadium in the more urban area of Everett, is transit.  Soccer is an international game.  The crowds are diverse, coming from suburban, rural and urban areas.  

Between this fact, and international soccer traditionally having large populations that take transit to the game, having the Revs playing in an urban area with transit connections, makes a lot of sense for the team.  It comes down to demographics, and it comes down to transit connections.  Foxboro, the Revs current home, does lie on a commuter rail line, but it is only used for select events, and it is hard to compare this to potential subway and bus connections in Everett.  

Having the stadium in Everett will give much better transit options for fans.  And while a lot of improvement has been made by the state and MBTA to commuter rail service for Foxboro, the travel time still remains about one hour to South Station in the city center.  A new stadium in Everett will change this, adding more transit options, and locating itself closer to population centers.  It will no longer just serve the suburbs, but serve the inner city fans as well.  With a new stadium planned for Everett, the future looks bright for the Revolution.  

Zach Baru can be followed on Twitter @zbaru and reached at zachbaru@gmail.com.

Tweet

$80 World Cup Commuter Rail is worth the price

By Zachary Baru

At the risk of sounding like an MBTA apologist, the $80 round trip commuter rail ticket from Boston to the World Cup this summer is not really the exorbitant price much of the internet has been blasting about.

While the internet does have its way of making too much about just about everything, if you really break this down, the $40 per direction cost of a train ticket that avoids Gillette Stadium traffic is not really that terrible.  Especially considering the traffic expected during the World Cup.

Let's take for example, a regular New England Patriots game at Gillette Stadium.  Let's say a game in September, versus the Jets.  The traffic is certainly going to be backed up many miles down Route 1, in any direction, regardless of the day of the week, or the start time.  If you've been to a Patriots game in Foxboro, you know this is a sure bet both before and after any game.  Carpooling does not usually begin to make this any better, as the traffic is bad enough to annoy basically anyone in the car, whether they are driving or a passenger.  Let's put it this way - if you are in the state of mind to remember the game, you are going to get annoyed with the traffic.  A limo would make it a little better of course, a bus might help, but either way, you are stuck in thick traffic for miles in either direction.  Bottom line, with the possible exception of the limo example, at this point many people might be thinking that an $80 commuter rail ticket to Downtown Boston might not be such a bad option.

A ride to let's say, Springfield, which should be an hour and forty-five minutes, easily could be 3-4 hours.  Especially with the threat of traffic on the Mass Pike.  Not taking the Pike?  Or not going to Western Mass.?  You are betting on I-93 or I-95/Route 128 being traffic-free.  There are a lot of reasons why rail can be a better travel option, and lets not even get into the environmental reasons, for which there are a lot.  

When it comes to traveling through major cities and from major events, rail can be a very good option.  MetLife Stadium has its own dedicated rail line during events, Denver has used light rail access since Empower Field opened, Madison Square Garden sees much more subway and rail access than cars, and Inter Miami's new stadium is connected to the terminus of Miami's commuter rail, creating record numbers for their Tri-Rail service.  This isn't a new concept in the U.S. by far, especially with Madison Square Garden's track record since its opening in 1968.  So why now, when Gillette Stadium's rail access is finally getting some attention, are people up in arms in what appears to be great numbers?  An increase from $20 to $80 is of course a lot, but is the $60 really enough to get so upset about?  Especially considering all of the above inconveniences that are all but removed with a rail ticket.

Perhaps it's the internet being the internet.  Controversy sells, and clicks will always be clicks.  But when all is taken into consideration, while a 300% increase will never be welcomed by customers in any industry, the real outcome here is a much improved experience for the fan.  It will be a safer way of traveling, and more or less worry-free for any fan taking advantage of the commuter rail service Gillette Stadium has to offer.  That sounds like an extra $60 well spent.  

Zach Baru can be followed on Twitter @zbaru and reached at zachbaru@gmail.com.

Tweet