Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail (South Coast Rail)

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

It's a tiresome argument that the mere presence of a population base and a nearby city is sufficient to make a massive transit project worthwhile; this is exactly how wasteful projects get justified and built. First, "bare bones" is not a great option because if you're going to get people to ride the train, you've gotta run it on a decent schedule. It also has to affordable enough to make people feel it's worth it. AND, this trip is not gonna be all that quick. That's a big problem... You can talk about your population base all you want, but the population is spread out all over and you're gonna need to have people drive to the train station (that's time, and parking $), then sit on the train (time and $), and then you hope that the job is near SS or else there's gonna be even more commuting and more $. So for many people, you're looking at a very long commute and expense that they might not think is worthwhile.

Again, the numbers I have seen always show an egregiously high cost/new rider for any version of this project. Has that ever happened in this state before? Yes, but that's not a reason to argue to keep doing it. Show me that this is the best possible use of XX billions of dollars to help Southeastern Mass and I'll support it. But I seriously doubt it is, and either way, the real drivers of the project are the local pols and pork barrel, not true transit equity.

I suspect you've never actually done that commute on a regular basis, but if you have please enlighten us. But you as well are using the same strawman argument. No reasonable person wants to spend 2bn dollars on this effort. I think that's stuck in people's mind as the initial cost of running the line through the swamp up to Stoughton. If I had a buck for every time someone's used that figure to justify not doing the Middleborough route I'd be about 100 short of financing the thing myself. The blah blah blah we're getting is that it'll cost a lot less to run this way than the old option. I personally would like to see the cost of 1) running to Taunton including Middleborough station relocation, then 2) cost of running to NB, and 3) cost of running to FR. In all cases exempting money that's already been spent.

Next, you aren't running the train down there just for the hell of it. Study after study is showing Boston is reaching full employment and needs to expand its pool of workers. You can do that with better transit options. If Boston was Detroit, or even Hartford where jobs are scarce then no you wouldn't spend money to get people to a place where they couldn't work. That's not Boston's reality and we need to stop thinking small. For the record if Southeast Mass did have a train connection and say Worcester didn't I'd be making the same argument.

 

[dwash59]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Isn't the base price of a Tesla Model 3 more like $35k?

Historically, Tesla has not met their announced price targets. The Model S came in $15,000 above the announced prices. And the price has gone up by $10,000 since then. So, the Model S is currently $25,000 above Tesla's originally announced price of "roughly half of $89,000".

No one should have faith in Tesla's claim of a $35,000 price until they are actually selling vehicles for that amount.

 

[FK4]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

^Whether I've done the commute or not alters nothing because that would be anecdotal evidence. I want to see data - show me a study that actually takes into account the commuting time and frequency of the projected finished product, and that shows that enough people will ride it to make it worthwhile, AND that it's money better spent than other projects: then, sure, I'm all for it. But that's not how we do things and politics trumps everything else. You say no reasonable person wants to spend 2 billion on this, but that's exactly what the local pols would do if they had their way.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

^Whether I've done the commute or not alters nothing because that would be anecdotal evidence. I want to see data - show me a study that actually takes into account the commuting time and frequency of the projected finished product, and that shows that enough people will ride it to make it worthwhile, AND that it's money better spent than other projects: then, sure, I'm all for it. But that's not how we do things and politics trumps everything else. You say no reasonable person wants to spend 2 billion on this, but that's exactly what the local pols would do if they had their way.

I think having some experience with the commute helps. However, as I said I too would like to see more study/details and to be clear I'm not in favor of building at all cost. But, I keep coming back to it from a layman's perspective and not a contractor or transportation junkie. How much can it actually cost to run the same train that stops in Middleborough now over to Taunton, including track improvements, a new station at cotley junction, and a new station up the tracks in Middleborough? If that cost is truly $2bn then okay, that's absurd. Then how much to each city from there? Again, if that's also $2bn it might be more prudent to just go to Taunton and call it a day. I'd have to dig it up but I heard talk of just the spur to NB costing less than 1bn. If they can bring it in for under that amount I think its worthwhile.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

^Whether I've done the commute or not alters nothing because that would be anecdotal evidence. I want to see data - show me a study that actually takes into account the commuting time and frequency of the projected finished product, and that shows that enough people will ride it to make it worthwhile, AND that it's money better spent than other projects: then, sure, I'm all for it. But that's not how we do things and politics trumps everything else. You say no reasonable person wants to spend 2 billion on this, but that's exactly what the local pols would do if they had their way.

Eh, I disagree. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but given the number of variables that go into this type of connection, data-driven estimates aren't particularly reliable either. There's a lot that's not accounted for and can't be accounted for with data. While data is important (and ultimately the most concrete piece of evidence for making a decision- even if it's imperfect), there are a lot of educated people in this region who currently don't seek out opportunities in Boston (or they do and they move closer) because of the commute. If there was a way to make it reasonable, they'd do it.

"Reasonable" is the operative word. And that's what I think my biggest takeaway is from the people who don't/haven't done the commute. For someone living in Boston, a 75 minute train ride is an absolute no-go. For someone in the Southeast where the commute is 90 minutes on a good day, the 75 minute commute is beyond reasonable (actually attractive). Having done it for three years, I view it through a different lens. I also feel pretty confident in saying that there's a big portion of the population down here that would go for it.

 

[FK4]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Eh, I disagree. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but given the number of variables that go into this type of connection, data-driven estimates aren't particularly reliable either. There's a lot that's not accounted for and can't be accounted for with data. While data is important (and ultimately the most concrete piece of evidence for making a decision- even if it's imperfect), there are a lot of educated people in this region who currently don't seek out opportunities in Boston (or they do and they move closer) because of the commute. If there was a way to make it reasonable, they'd do it.

"Reasonable" is the operative word. And that's what I think my biggest takeaway is from the people who don't/haven't done the commute. For someone living in Boston, a 75 minute train ride is an absolute no-go. For someone in the Southeast where the commute is 90 minutes on a good day, the 75 minute commute is beyond reasonable (actually attractive). Having done it for three years, I view it through a different lens. I also feel pretty confident in saying that there's a big portion of the population down here that would go for it.

Well, evidence may be imperfect but it's better than nothing, and definitely better than anecdotal, sorry. Moreover, it's not the train ride itself (and I recall seeing longer projections than 75 minutes, but let's call it that) - it's the time driving to the commuter rail station, parking, paying for parking, then getting from the terminus to work. For a helluva lot of people that will make it 90 minutes. Now, 75 minutes might be more relaxed, sitting on a train. But simply trumpeting the train time alone is not the trip time for the riders. That's something to factor in as well.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

[crawls out of sewer for one post]

Service levels:

• The M'boro Alternative is a best-case 95-100 min. trip. Emphasis: best-case, because last traffic modeling done of the M'boro Alternative was 15+ years ago and peak station dwells at the biggest ridership growers (Brockton, Bridgewater, etc.) aren't the same as before. Reduce projected ridership from the (already-reduced) FEIR projections accordingly for the +25 min. longer trip time.

• They haven't specified how many trains can run down each SCR branch on this routing. Was 10 round trips per branch via Stoughton, possibly less here (that they aren't saying one way or other: probably less). Prepare to reduce projected FEIR boardings further on all branch stops if the state un-buries the lede on achievable frequencies.

• Taunton Depot station has to relocate south of Cotley Jct. to a more remote site straddling the Berkley town line. The Mozzone Blvd. site was one of the only FEIR stops that achieved real 1:1 parking space utilization, due to ease of access to the 24/140 interchange. Far less available capacity, inferior road access at the new site; reduce ridership projections accordingly due to lesser P&R and GATRA bus patronage. New site has wetlands issues Mozzone doesn't, NIMBY issues with residential abutters on Berkley side of the town line. Significant possibility it can't be built at all. Sen. Pacheco of Taunton has already threatened to sue over the barely-there Taunton coverage.

• Middleboro Station, the #2 highest-ridership Old Colony station and 25th on the system, has to be abandoned at its current location. Task Force gave some blah blah about doing a reverse move there, but that adds 10+ more minutes to the schedule so forget it. State proposes relocated stop north of Pilgrim Jct., but hasn't contacted the town about where. All the lush TOD that's driven ridership increases at current stop gets isolated, and relocated stop would be much smaller w/ less P&R capacity from 495. Reduce M'boro Blue Book boardings anywhere from 50-100%.

• 5 branches now have to be fed off one Old Colony main. Even if double-tracked through Dorchester & Quincy, that's too many trains to run at peak without disruptions to existing frequencies. Speed limit's probably going to drop a lot inside-128 from higher-density signaling and need to thread the schedule needle around single-filing behind trains making JFK, Quincy, or Braintree stops. Prepare for repeat of Stoughton Alt. where intermediates get skipped at rush to make impossibly thin margins for train meets/overtakes (Quincy, Montello, Campello, etc.). Prepare for Greenbush & Plymouth to have schedules re-spaced with awkwardly long gaps and clumps in frequencies during peak-most rush (i.e. super-long gaps w/ sardine-packed trains, followed by super-short gaps with near-empty trains). Reduce Blue Book boardings across the entire South Shore from worsened variability of frequencies on whole branch schedules, or outright loss of frequencies at individual stops.

• Balance the ledger of ridership losses on existing South Shore service with gains from adjusted-down FEIR boardings on the South Coast stops, with loss of Middleboro Station and the +25 min. SCR travel times being the biggest buzzkills. Best-case ends up SCR gains cancel out South Shore losses. Worst-case if train frequencies get harmed is a net loss of ridership across the board because gains can't overpower losses. Ask yourself how we even got to a place where ^this^ is the value proposition the whole project hinges on.

• THEY...KNEW...THIS...COULD...HARM...RIDERSHIP...when the M'boro Alternative was first eliminated from consideration 15 years ago. There is no universe where transit loss to existing service areas are credible grounds for proceeding on expansion, no matter how much 'relatively' cheaper we're talking. South Shore pols >> South Coast in political heft, so zero-sum wagers of political capital are going to meet an ugly end in this matchup. South Coasters should ask their Legislature caucus if that's really the hill they want to die on.

Cost issues:

• $1.1B to double-track the Old Colony in Dorchester & Quincy, plus upgrade the Middleboro Secondary. On top of the base costs of building the branches. Still a $2B project.

• You may say..."Well, that's an improvement over $3B!" No, it's not. The $1B in difference is entirely tied up in the Army Corps' insistence that a single-track concrete trestle be built through the swamp in lieu of using the existing double-track embankment. And that said single-track must be done with wires, NOT for environmental reasons but because the single-track so destroys the schedule that papering over a 2 min. electric vs. diesel improvement from wires is the literal only way to make the necessary train meets on-paper.

• This is wholly fraudulent reasoning easily defeatable through a formal challenge, because the Corps allowed exactly this type of swamp embankment through vastly more sensitive Scituate swampland not 10 years ago when diesels to Greenbush were restored at their blessing. Where it was built at-cost and bloat-free (Greenbush's $$$ problems were all well north).

• The state's unwillingness to challenge leaves >$1B in purely naked bloat and brokenness saddling the Stoughton alignment. In the real world where GLX-level cost scrutiny is applied to all stakeholders, a legally beaten-back Stoughton Alt. shorn of the Corps' BS assumptions costs equal-or-less than M'boro.

• Equal-or-less cost before weighing the revenue case of what a not-broken Stoughton Alt. can aggregately deliver vs. an M'boro Alt. that slashes back ridership projections everywhere on the branches, lays waste to South Shore service levels, and nukes TOD/P&R Middleboro off the map. This is only empirically "cheaper" and anecdotally "better" in arbitrary funhouse-mirror bizzarro world where shitting all over South Shore voters is seen as 'good' use of political capital, and where the Army Corps is some sort of Vatican walled city whose conclusions have never ever been successfully challenged on any other project.

To the posters who keep making the same overly emotional arguments about this, and pitting Boston vs. Fall River & New Bedford into some sort of self-esteem contest. . .

• I'd ask why you haven't bothered to read any of the previous dozen pages in this 35-page thread detailing blow-by-blow everything that is factually broken about this project and the way it's being conducted.
• I'd ask why you haven't bothered to read any of the factual evidence on the previous pages of this thread that it WON'T deliver usable transit service or...by-proxy...usable access to employment.
• I'd ask why you haven't bothered to read any of the factual evidence on the previous pages of this thread that it may acutely HARM other commuters' existing transit service and acutely worsen the SE Expressway carpocalypse.
• I'd ask why some of the same posters are so wholly on-point about frequencies mattering the world when it's a different transit thread...but take such pains to repeat 'intangibles' anecdotes that don't have anything to do with service frequencies in this particular SCR thread.

I don't ask because I know the exact reason: tribalism FTW! And so every time the thread flips to a new page it's like the previous thirty-something pages fall into a memory hole and it's an all-clear vacuum to start arguing the same old talking points, push the same agendas, impose the same old rooting-for-laundry reframing of the project around who's city is more deserving than whom.

There's nothing more to say. Don't expect anyone to feel motivated to re-explain blow-by-blow for the 37th time why any and every permutation of this project and its political kabuki dance are defective-by-design. All that brutal info is there within 5 clicks' reach on this thread's history. And the folks most self-invested in re-arguing themselves blue each time there's a thread bump fully well know that.


[/back to blissful lurking sanity]

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Well, evidence may be imperfect but it's better than nothing, and definitely better than anecdotal, sorry. Moreover, it's not the train ride itself (and I recall seeing longer projections than 75 minutes, but let's call it that) - it's the time driving to the commuter rail station, parking, paying for parking, then getting from the terminus to work. For a helluva lot of people that will make it 90 minutes. Now, 75 minutes might be more relaxed, sitting on a train. But simply trumpeting the train time alone is not the trip time for the riders. That's something to factor in as well.

95-100 minutes is still an improvement over the status quo. Dattco between Boston/New Bedford is more expensive than the train, and is scheduled for 100-110 minutes during rush hour trips (and ridership is still strong). That's allowing for "normal" conditions- many times it's much worse (I use Dattco about once a week, as well as Middleboro/Lakeville rail). MBTA CR for all of its flaws, is still more reliable, consistent and comfortable than commuter buses (inc. Dattco, Peter Pan to Fall River and Bloom to Taunton) which sometimes simply don't show up and don't announce that they're not showing up.

As far as the "it's not just the train ride itself" piece, how is that any different from the way it is now? I mean, the "paying for parking" bit is a bit ridiculous to include, no? You have a couple of payment options. 1) you can put cash in the box if you feel inclined (I doubt the new lots will even have this option), 2) you can pay from your phone while you're sitting on the train, or 3) you can live the life of luxury, do absolutely nothing at the station, and pay the $0.50 surcharge to have the bill delivered to your home on a monthly basis. None of those things are time consuming.

The bolded is nothing new. It's currently a factor because, no matter what, you're connecting at both ends. But with SCR- in addition to shaving some time off the trip- you no longer have to drive 30+ minutes to Middleborough/Lakeville, or stand outside in a park and ride and hope a bus shows up.

That's the only thing I'm going to debate in this thread. For all of the complaints about how awful the trip time is (and it really is- we should want/expect better), it's still a significant improvement over an existing "system" (Dattco/Peter Pan/Bloom) that has pretty good ridership already.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Has anybody ever been in a meeting with the guy who has good knowledge but he just goes on...and on....and on....and on...until by the time he makes a salient point everyone is the room has fallen asleep or is thinking about what to have for lunch?

F-Line, we all appreciate the technical knowledge, but have you ever heard the expression cut to the quick already?

But, for the sake of the audience, I'm going to try to pick out a few relevant things here...

1) Service levels. Certainly for the Taunton extension if the Middleborough train gets you to SS in a little under an hour, why would an extra 10 miles take and extra 42 minutes? Also in terms of frequencies and needing extra trains, aren't we merely running the train that stops in Middleborough one more stop further down the line?

Next, where does it say they're definitely relocating from Cotley Junction under this new plan to a remote spot on the Berkeley line? First I've heard of this and if true makes no sense, but again is that your speculation or part of an official plan somewhere?

Finally for this section, why in God's name would people stop using the Middleborough station, a 50% drop in your opinion, if it got moved up a quarter mile? That makes no sense, and again is this purely your speculation? Sure sounds like it. All of your fear mongering about lower ridership, which doesn't compute if we're running the same train that stops in Middleborough for one extra stop initially, doesn't seem to have any basis anywhere outside of your head although kudos for burying that fact in some flowery language.

Cost issues: Your plan to re-ignite the Stoughton alternative revolves around one critical component, which I'll call F-Line's Magic Wand. If you could wave that and get rid of local opposition, armed with environmental rulings in its pocket, to get rid of the mitigation through Bigfoot's home in the swamp and cut a billion dollars off the project, sign me up! But, one has to wonder why you haven't deployed your magical powers at an earlier date... In the meantime, lets deal with reality as we know it.

Once again, if you're running the same train that now stops in Middleborough another stop, why do we need to start double tracking the line? ITS THE SAME TRAIN. Does it currently levitate to get to South Station?

Previous 35 page bleatings being ignored: As we've already covered, some of you are really, really long winded and have a bias against the project that can't be overcome by any logic. Also, a lot of the previous whining was over the ridiculously expensive Stoughton alternative, and I'm not sure any of the advocates of the Middleborough alternative were in favor of that plan given the cost. Beyond that, the old plans poo-poohing Middleborough extension seemed in many ways to fit the behest of the Devalue Patrick administration, who although I'm a pretty liberal guy myself I would not trust any more than a vampire giving me a bj.

I'll conclude with this thought. Often times opponents would like to stereotype activists with a one size fits all label. Lets say tribalism exists. BUT, lets say there's a 3rd possibility to blow your mind. Maybe people are looking for a cost effective alternative that's a win-win for everyone. Underserved region gets access to better paying jobs so that they need not relocate closer to the city, AND Boston which is currently reaching peak employment gets a fresh influx of workers thereby mitigating cost increases.

Reminds me of if you are opposed to a casino, its automatically assumed you want to tell people what to do, instead of a 3rd option which is you don't care if people blow their paychecks at these things, but they often turn out to be a bad deal as local pols too easily give away the store over time whenever the casino renegs on its initial promises. People have a variety of reasons for wanting a South Coast rail extension. I'm cautiously optimistic that our voices are starting to be heard beyond the pandering of the previous governor.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

That's the only thing I'm going to debate in this thread. For all of the complaints about how awful the trip time is (and it really is- we should want/expect better), it's still a significant improvement over an existing "system" (Dattco/Peter Pan/Bloom) that has pretty good ridership already.

And that's why it's pointless to respond: I/me/mine. Not even an attempt to explain away why shitting all over the South Shore's transit frequencies and access is an acceptable answer. Just like the brokenness of the Stoughton Alternative's kneecapping of frequencies to Stoughton, Canton, Westwood, and Hyde Park is a " ¯_(ツ)_/¯: I'm owed this."

It's a complete waste of time to rehash this when facts just disappear down the wormhole every time. We get it...you got yours, who cares about anyone else being screwed because of it.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

And that's why it's pointless to respond: I/me/mine. Not even an attempt to explain away why shitting all over the South Shore's transit frequencies and access is an acceptable answer. Just like the brokenness of the Stoughton Alternative's kneecapping of frequencies to Stoughton, Canton, Westwood, and Hyde Park is a " ¯_(ツ)_/¯: I'm owed this."

It's a complete waste of time to rehash this when facts just disappear down the wormhole every time. We get it...you got yours, who cares about anyone else being screwed because of it.

Not at all the case- don't lump me into that category. I simply have no argument to other points mentioned. You know infinitely more than I do regarding the actual logistics of making a project of this magnitude happen. I don't have anything to dispute what you've argued time and again on this thread. As far as I'm concerned, you're right. If you're not, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I also think you (and others) who have posted about the price are spot on. It's beyond unacceptable. I have no counterpoint, nor do I think it's OK because "I got mine." As much as I want a rail connection to the South Coast (but particularly Taunton which is unfortunate to have to be part of this), the cost is prohibitive. There are also other projects that are more beneficial to the Commonwealth (i.e. Red/Blue Connector, Blue Line to Lynn, NSRL, etc.) and I don't agree with "kneecapping" other communities for the sake of a $3 billion rail connection to FR/NB.

The facts haven't disappeared. The only thing I vehemently disagree with is the notion that the trip time would be a prohibitive factor to potential riders. It wouldn't. even at 95-100 minutes it's an improvement over the existing bus service which is has solid ridership. CR is also more reliable (and a more pleasant experience) than the existing bus service- both of which are appealing factors to new riders. That certainly doesn't change anything about the points made above. However, it's one of the few arguments that gets rehashed here that really doesn't hold any weight with people who have much experience commuting from that region.

If you want to convince one of the "I've got mine" folks that South Coast Rail is a failure, drop the "but it's a 95-100 minute trip!" pitch because that doesn't sound nearly as bad to them as it does to you.

 

[FK4]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Lrfox, you work in the Lindemann so let's not argue. But, you are just citing your own personal viewpoints as justification. That's a problem. You cant just say that since you live in the region and have certain opinions on what ride time is acceptable or not that those opinions are shared by all. Yes, collecting data is difficult. No, that doesn't mean we should build huge infrastructure projects without trying to collect as much data as possible. And lastly, I wasnt talking about the time it takes to pay for parking, but the cost. Cost affects most people's decisions on how theyre going to commute. Parking + rail might be more expensive than many people are willing to pay. But I dont have the numbers. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS, MASS.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I am also done debating, since apparently you live in this region, want this train, and are ok with blurring the facts with anecdotal evidence as long as it supports your personalized viewpoint on transportation options.

Uhh... What? I literally said I don't disagree with any of the facts presented, nor do I think "this train" (read: the multi-billion dollar options proposed) is remotely feasible as-is. I think the region deserves a good rail connection (as do many opponents of the SCR project), but I don't think THIS proposal is a good rail connection, nor do I think it deserves to be given the green light.

I'm also not "blurring the facts." My entire gripe is with the notion that the proposed commute time- 95-100 minutes- is going to somehow be a deterrent to riders in the South Coast. There are no facts to debate there. You (and others) think it's going to be a problem (opinion), and I don't. Sure, some of my argument is anecdotal as someone who makes the commute daily through various means (car, rail, and bus); but I also cited existing timetables for the bus to/from New Bedford which takes longer than the proposed train AND has strong ridership.

It's around 30 minutes (or more) from much of Fall River and New Bedford to Middleborough/Lakeville. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you bolded it

Bolded = that's right, YOU. These are your personal opinions and perhaps those people you talk to, who think like you.

All opinions on whether or not the estimated trip time will deter riders are just that- opinions. Yours and mine. I also backed it up with an example of the existing service which is worse (not an opinion) and still draws good ridership. If you want to debate that even full trains wouldn't justify a $3 billion dollar price tag, I'd agree. I'm just saying that the trip time isn't the turnoff you think it is. It's currently worse and people still do it.

Ever hear of how the recent election happened?

What?

What you think about the commute actually says nothing about what most people think.

Again, it's not a difficult connection to make. 95-100 minutes isn't ideal to most people. However, it's better than the status quo. It stands to reason that most people would probably prefer the improved service of 95-100 minutes over the existing means of transit which is longer, less reliable, and inconsistent. It's really not a big leap.

If I lived on the South Coast (which I dont, because I prefer to not have to deal with this, and it's an ongoing issue as I contemplate whether I ever want to leave the city - for somewhere outside - and lose an easy commute but gain some breathing space), I would be of your opinion, but I recognize that my views make sense to me but I have zero idea of whether they make sense to other people, or more importantly, to enough people to make a big commuter project worthwhile.

Again, What?

Yes - this stuff is hard to study. That doesnt justify unilaterally deciding to throw evidence to the winds and embark on a project without researching it.

What evidence am I supposed to have unilaterally thrown to the winds? Because I said, "I think ridership estimates are low"? It's an opinion based on experience and comparison to alternative methods of transportation between the same two points. I could be right, I could be wrong; but I never even hinted that my opinion is justification for proceeding with the project as-is. Also, when did I say we should embark on this project without researching it?

I will end by clarifying that I wasnt talking about the time it takes to pay for parking, but the cost. Commuting costs are significant for people whether they drive or ride, and factor into their decisionmaking on what mode of transportation theyre going to use.

Ok. But driving into the city is still more expensive than the train if you don't have free parking (and arguably more expensive regardless- there are tons of automobile ownership/operation cost estimates that would cite +/- 100 miles r/t daily is exceedingly expensive). Dattco is $28 r/t between New Bedford and Boston. Peter Pan can cost over $30 r/t between Boston and Fall River. Commuter rail (inc. $4 for parking- what it costs at Middleboro/Lakeville) will almost certainly be cheaper (assuming FR/NB are zone 9). Again very little changes. In fact, when you factor in the reliability and speed of the CR vs. the existing bus service, it's not a difficult bet to assume people will pick the faster, more reliable, more comfortable service as long as costs are comparable.

You may prefer the option (as would I) of riding the train over sitting in a parking lot every morning. Many people wouldnt and would choose to drive their car instead. I dont know how many of each there are, but neither do you. Again, show me the numbers, show me the numbers, show me the numbers.

There are always going to be people who choose to drive. I don't know how many of each there are either. I'm just pointing out that based on the fact that even at 90-100 minutes this service is still faster than the existing methods of transit (that is a fact and there are numbers in the schedules to back it up) AND more comfortable, reliable, it's not going to be as unappealing to many locals as it is to people who live closer to Boston and balk at the idea of such a long commute. I also think that for that same reason (and the fact that the last estimates I've seen are pretty old- the region has grown and the commuting patterns have shifted a bit), the ridership estimates are a bit low. Do I think that's good enough to fund a $3 billion rail project? Not in infinity bajillion gazillion years. But it's one element of this discussion that I find to be debatable.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Not at all the case- don't lump me into that category. I simply have no argument to other points mentioned. You know infinitely more than I do regarding the actual logistics of making a project of this magnitude happen. I don't have anything to dispute what you've argued time and again on this thread. As far as I'm concerned, you're right. If you're not, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Bull. The fact that this project induces real no-foolin' transit loss on either proposed alignment to multiple communities with existing service has been immaculately documented. Yet, if it's not explained for the 437th time in the exact post quoted in someone's reply it disappears into a wormhole as if it never existed. By saying you have no argument to other points mentioned prior, you are staking your entire "something > 0" argument for South Coast service of any kind to advocacy that is A-OK to rob somebody else's transit frequencies so you get yours. Canton, Stoughton get rush-hour frequencies lopped in half, Westwood Landing lopped by a third...A-OK because I get something. Middleboro loses its station entirely, schedule spacing wrecked on 3 Old Colony lines that currently pump in 19,000 and counting daily riders...A-OK because I get something.

This is quite literally what that advocacy is arguing through omission.

I also think you (and others) who have posted about the price are spot on. It's beyond unacceptable. I have no counterpoint, nor do I think it's OK because "I got mine." As much as I want a rail connection to the South Coast (but particularly Taunton which is unfortunate to have to be part of this), the cost is prohibitive. There are also other projects that are more beneficial to the Commonwealth (i.e. Red/Blue Connector, Blue Line to Lynn, NSRL, etc.) and I don't agree with "kneecapping" other communities for the sake of a $3 billion rail connection to FR/NB.

Then why is this never said unless the direct previous quoted post re-states those damning facts for the record for the umpteenth time. What the hell were the arguments on the previous 2 pages even about, willfully absent these facts? A circle jerk of "NO U!"...that's what.

The facts haven't disappeared. The only thing I vehemently disagree with is the notion that the trip time would be a prohibitive factor to potential riders. It wouldn't. even at 95-100 minutes it's an improvement over the existing bus service which is has solid ridership. CR is also more reliable (and a more pleasant experience) than the existing bus service- both of which are appealing factors to new riders. That certainly doesn't change anything about the points made above. However, it's one of the few arguments that gets rehashed here that really doesn't hold any weight with people who have much experience commuting from that region.

And the fact that you and a couple others harp on this again and again in omission of the more damning facts is disingenuous as hell. The project killer above all project killers is the fact that Stoughton Electric or M'boro Alt. take transit away from transit-served communities. Full-stop. Do not pass go. Do not rationalize travel times. Do not rationalize "at least it's something..." No...a polite society does not inflict acute and immediate pain on one region by unilaterally removing their public service so another region can "at least it's something..." Nor does a representative government like the Commonwealth have the political means to fuck over constituent blocs like the whole fucking South Shore on a whim. Everybody falling over themselves today to pamper South Coast swing votes is going to abandon ship when 6 Senate districts and 15+ House districts pull out the prison shanks and join Sen. Pacheco's threatened lawsuit.

Sorry...leaving the gigantic fucking elephant in the room unsaid time and again is VERY MUCH implicitly saying "fuck the South Shore / fuck the Route 138 corridor; I got mine."

If you want to convince one of the "I've got mine" folks that South Coast Rail is a failure, drop the "but it's a 95-100 minute trip!" pitch because that doesn't sound nearly as bad to them as it does to you.

Watch the elephant vanish! The ONLY thing discussed on the last page is "95-100 minute trip!"..."95-100 minute trip!"..."95-100 minute trip!" Not a single word said about the transit loss you retroactively claim is a nonstarter. It's 95-100 minutes in point-counterpoint vacuum...until it's about Boston's full employment...then until it's about stereotyping activists. He who chooses the quote tag contents in a reply chooses the reality!


Fucking hell...and people wonder why some posters need a mental health break from AB. Have at it, guys...it's a post-fact world we now live in. Short attention-span theatre FTW!

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Bull. The fact that this project induces real no-foolin' transit loss on either proposed alignment to multiple communities with existing service has been immaculately documented. Yet, if it's not explained for the 437th time in the exact post quoted in someone's reply it disappears into a wormhole as if it never existed. By saying you have no argument to other points mentioned prior, you are staking your entire "something > 0" argument for South Coast service of any kind to advocacy that is A-OK to rob somebody else's transit frequencies so you get yours. Canton, Stoughton get rush-hour frequencies lopped in half, Westwood Landing lopped by a third...A-OK because I get something. Middleboro loses its station entirely, schedule spacing wrecked on 3 Old Colony lines that currently pump in 19,000 and counting daily riders...A-OK because I get something.

This is quite literally what that advocacy is arguing through omission.



Then why is this never said unless the direct previous quoted post re-states those damning facts for the record for the umpteenth time. What the hell were the arguments on the previous 2 pages even about, willfully absent these facts? A circle jerk of "NO U!"...that's what.



And the fact that you and a couple others harp on this again and again in omission of the more damning facts is disingenuous as hell. The project killer above all project killers is the fact that Stoughton Electric or M'boro Alt. take transit away from transit-served communities. Full-stop. Do not pass go. Do not rationalize travel times. Do not rationalize "at least it's something..." No...a polite society does not inflict acute and immediate pain on one region by unilaterally removing their public service so another region can "at least it's something..." Nor does a representative government like the Commonwealth have the political means to fuck over constituent blocs like the whole fucking South Shore on a whim. Everybody falling over themselves today to pamper South Coast swing votes is going to abandon ship when 6 Senate districts and 15+ House districts pull out the prison shanks and join Sen. Pacheco's threatened lawsuit.

Sorry...leaving the gigantic fucking elephant in the room unsaid time and again is VERY MUCH implicitly saying "fuck the South Shore / fuck the Route 138 corridor; I got mine."



Watch the elephant vanish! The ONLY thing discussed on the last page is "95-100 minute trip!"..."95-100 minute trip!"..."95-100 minute trip!" Not a single word said about the transit loss you retroactively claim is a nonstarter. It's 95-100 minutes in point-counterpoint vacuum...until it's about Boston's full employment...then until it's about stereotyping activists. He who chooses the quote tag contents in a reply chooses the reality!


Fucking hell...and people wonder why some posters need a mental health break from AB. Have at it, guys...it's a post-fact world we now live in. Short attention-span theatre FTW!

Maybe take another?

I'm not in favor of the proposal (either one). Period. My contention of the "95-100 minute trip" point is not an argument in favor of South Coast Rail. As you pointed out, there are ($)3 Billion perfectly valid arguments against South Coast Rail (you've listed them repeatedly and I agree with almost every reason you've cited as to why it's a terrible idea to even continue to entertain the proposal as-is). The trip time isn't one of the better ones.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Has anybody ever been in a meeting with the guy who has good knowledge but he just goes on...and on....and on....and on...until by the time he makes a salient point everyone is the room has fallen asleep or is thinking about what to have for lunch?

F-Line, we all appreciate the technical knowledge, but have you ever heard the expression cut to the quick already?

This is rich coming after 2500 words in 4 days on the subject.

1) Service levels. Certainly for the Taunton extension if the Middleborough train gets you to SS in a little under an hour, why would an extra 10 miles take and extra 42 minutes? Also in terms of frequencies and needing extra trains, aren't we merely running the train that stops in Middleborough one more stop further down the line?

No...there are 2 branches. This is not like a linear extension from Middleboro to Buzzards Bay +15 minutes extra where the same schedule would be run at same intervals extra distance, with only change being terminal departure times rejiggered to put the headways back in prior balance. To serve both Fall River AND New Bedford requires another completely different schedule slate of 10 (if it's truly that high) totally new trains that have to be shivved onto an Old Colony main that already juggles 3 balanced schedules. As well as totally new backfill trains for re-balancing headways to the other city that is indeed the linear extension of the existing M'boro schedule, because an extra +40 minutes of running time gaps the headways out far greater than recalibrated departure times can fix.

The M'boro Alt. was eliminated the first time around because it couldn't swing it without transit loss either cutting one or more of Greenbush or Plymouth's schedules to vulture trains or introducing so many headway hiccups to all 3 lines from force-fitting new/extended 1:30+ schedules amongst existing 60-minute schedules that the gaps and bunching variability would upend rush hour transit across the South Shore.

This is 15-years-old news. That information didn't disappear beyond the black hole's event horizon because some people's attention spans have shorter event horizons than others.

Next, where does it say they're definitely relocating from Cotley Junction under this new plan to a remote spot on the Berkeley line? First I've heard of this and if true makes no sense, but again is that your speculation or part of an official plan somewhere?

It's on the state's own damn PowerPoint slides reprinted in countless media stories over the last week. Taunton Depot: currently located NORTH of Cotley on Mozzone Blvd. Must be relocated SOUTH of Cotley on an empty lot at end of Industrial Dr. Berkley town line is approx. 700 ft. away on other side of tracks, with houses clustering on Plain St. both sides of the town line.

Do you not read your own local papers before spewing 2500 words in 4 days of so-called local perspective? Clearly because that exact PDF was not linked in each and every prior post, it's "speculation". Jesus Christ.

Finally for this section, why in God's name would people stop using the Middleborough station, a 50% drop in your opinion, if it got moved up a quarter mile? That makes no sense, and again is this purely your speculation? Sure sounds like it. All of your fear mongering about lower ridership, which doesn't compute if we're running the same train that stops in Middleborough for one extra stop initially, doesn't seem to have any basis anywhere outside of your head although kudos for burying that fact in some flowery language.

It doesn't matter that your own local papers are reporting that Towns of Middleboro and Lakeville were blindsided by this. It doesn't matter that the documentation for both the first rejection of the SCR M'boro Alternative and the original early-90's station siting documentation that chose the current station location each cited land and road access inadequacies in their rejections of the downtown location. Or that projected ridership differences between locations were calculated back then. Or that those ridership differences calculated back then are amplified today by the much greater-than-predicted success of the TOD around the current station. Or that the imbalance in train frequencies (gaps & bunching) required to run 2 branches out of here isn't going to mess things up further.

No, it's all Internet Asshole speculation and "NO U!" because every single post doesn't have a cumulative bibliographic citation of all material previously covered and readily available on Google. Which by your own admission you wouldn't read anyway because "cut to the chase"...so, also, apparently an eye-of-beholder matter of whose 2500 words of posting create the reality. But, you know...you managed to work in a personal attack, so Y.O.L.O. (shrug)

Cost issues: Your plan to re-ignite the Stoughton alternative revolves around one critical component, which I'll call F-Line's Magic Wand. If you could wave that and get rid of local opposition, armed with environmental rulings in its pocket, to get rid of the mitigation through Bigfoot's home in the swamp and cut a billion dollars off the project, sign me up! But, one has to wonder why you haven't deployed your magical powers at an earlier date... In the meantime, lets deal with reality as we know it.

Which is...rob from the South Shore so you get a thing. Glad we've cleared that up about a few folks who doth protest a bit much in this thread without saying what they truly mean.

Once again, if you're running the same train that now stops in Middleborough another stop, why do we need to start double tracking the line? ITS THE SAME TRAIN. Does it currently levitate to get to South Station?

No, you are not running the SAME TRAIN to TWO DIFFERENT PLACES. Branching means two different places.

branch
bran(t)SH/

noun
1. a part of a tree that grows out from the trunk or from a bough.
synonyms: bough, limb, arm, offshoot
"the branches of a tree"

verb
1. (of a road or path) divide into one or more subdivisions.
synonyms: fork, bifurcate, divide, subdivide, split

Levitation technology actually exists in the lab. On-the-fly duplication/de-duplication technology does not.

Previous 35 page bleatings being ignored: As we've already covered, some of you are really, really long winded and have a bias against the project that can't be overcome by any logic. Also, a lot of the previous whining was over the ridiculously expensive Stoughton alternative, and I'm not sure any of the advocates of the Middleborough alternative were in favor of that plan given the cost. Beyond that, the old plans poo-poohing Middleborough extension seemed in many ways to fit the behest of the Devalue Patrick administration, who although I'm a pretty liberal guy myself I would not trust any more than a vampire giving me a bj.

Reaffirmed: whose 2500 words set the reality for all is eye-of-beholder. I solemnly affirm to to zero retention of all facts empirically cited from official sources about transit loss, broken scheduling, and broken project process because it's all whining and pooh-poohing to me. As opposed to my own fervently held opinion...which I will not substantiate but is Truth because reasons.

Gotcha.

I'll conclude with this thought. Often times opponents would like to stereotype activists with a one size fits all label. Lets say tribalism exists. BUT, lets say there's a 3rd possibility to blow your mind. Maybe people are looking for a cost effective alternative that's a win-win for everyone. Underserved region gets access to better paying jobs so that they need not relocate closer to the city, AND Boston which is currently reaching peak employment gets a fresh influx of workers thereby mitigating cost increases.

Where is the win-win in robbing from another region's existing jobs access to give your region access? Cite your own facts backing that up as 'Just and True'. Cite a governing mechanism where that will actually bring about the desired result in a Commonwealth where...oh...let's say tribalism quite very much exists in electoral politics. As well as amongst tribes that are currently ratified members of the MBTA district vs. tribes that are not.

Don't be bashful. Blow our minds with that third win-win possibility that gives everyone access to Boston employment and takes no employment access away from anyone who's already got it. I'm a patient guy if it takes another 2500 words to explain that one.

Reminds me of if you are opposed to a casino, its automatically assumed you want to tell people what to do, instead of a 3rd option which is you don't care if people blow their paychecks at these things, but they often turn out to be a bad deal as local pols too easily give away the store over time whenever the casino renegs on its initial promises. People have a variety of reasons for wanting a South Coast rail extension. I'm cautiously optimistic that our voices are starting to be heard beyond the pandering of the previous governor.

A metaphor absolutely no one has dangled in this thread until now. Hence, it was always used in this thread as a crutch of the whiners. Because haters and Y.O.L.O.


-----

Somebody's already done a document dump on the RR.net SCR thread of new NOPC document releases to chew on. I'll be chiming in there about any new info that comes to light. This apparently isn't a thread for productively hashing out current events, information, facts in evidence, yada-yada.

Until next time I ill-advisedly poke head out of the doom bunker...toodles, ladies and gents.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Lets see if we can bring this thing in for a landing....

Starting with what we agree on! FK4 says we need new numbers. I think we're all completely on board with this. New estimates on costs and ridership are a must. Next, there's also consensus that the old 2bn (now 3.4Bn) cost to run the rail to the South coast via Stoughton, Middleborough, or the moon is too much for any of us. At this point, there is no need for us to quarrel on these two issues. Anybody who continues to do so either loves straw man arguments, likes long winded posts, or their girlfriend banged someone from the South Coast years back and this is their attempt at revenge.

But, here's something I have reconsidered after a month of discussion and it wasn't from our resident Tolstoy. Originally my preference was to run the line down to one city from the get go, and then do the other later if possible. My new thoughts are as follows:

Phase I: Middleborough to Taunton. 10 miles of track upgrade from new station in Middleborough to new station at Cotley off highway. Few grade crossings as it mostly runs through woods and under 24. Direct highway connection from both FR and NB. Busses should be run from local stations timed to meet end of rail line. No extra capacity needed, nobody getting their schedule screwed further up track. Its the same train that stops in Middleborough starting 10 minutes earlier in Taunton. Can't see what the controversy is here.

Phase II: This gets more controversial but here goes. In order to avoid track capacity issues at this time, one city or the other needs to be chosen to extend the line to first. That would be a metric based on ridership projections and cost. Distance is about the same but one track could be in worse condition, more crossings, etc. Whoever gives more benefit for the buck gets extension first provided ridership projections and cost balance out. That leaves...

Phase III: City that missed out on Phase II has a tougher road, because here's where capacity issues from running extra trains come into play. Its possible ridership goes gangbusters and its worth it. Its also possible bus connection is the way to go. IMHO its a mistake to try and do this all at once, but one city is going to have a longer wait than the other, or will have to make due with a bus connection for longer.

Now I will sit back and wait for another novel with the recurring theme over 20,000 words that those of us in favor of this approach just want to screw commuters in the RT 138 corridor.

 

[The EGE]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

And you still haven't explained how you're going to avoid screwing the current Middleborough/Lakeville station - which currently has hundreds of units of housing directly around it. Any possible service through Middleborough is going to involve reducing or eliminating service to one of the best examples of successful TOD in the entire state. That alone should be a sign that going through Middleborough is a Bad Idea.

Also, heads up: You can't use the Middleborough Layover for Taunton service without either paying a pretty penny to modify it, or having some nasty operational issues from wyeing trains. It's designed to support trains coming from M/L. All of the locomotive support (oil pads, plug-ins, etc) are at the wrong end for trains coming from Cotley.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Counterpoint - Is it ok to negatively impact existing service to provide service where no service currently exists? Yes. If the result is an increase in overall ridership. (Obviously if that's not the case as assumed above, it's not.) Saying it's all about FTW as long as I get mine is not the end all be all nail in the coffin you seem to think it is. The pendulum swings both ways. ie. South Shore pols saying you can't have yours because it impacts what I already have. This is comparable to our Boston NIMBY's who oppose things that would block their view (something they don't own.)

Am I saying I want to cannibalize existing OC frequencies? Hell no! First and foremost... because it would negatively impact me as an existing rider.

If SCR on the M/L line were done, and it included double tracking thru Quincy/Dorchester, and it increased frequencies on the newly extended M/L branch, and it didn't impact the other OC lines frequencies, and it occasionally rained skittles on sunny days.... I'd be all over it. Again, much of this from a selfish me me me point of view. Train to NB and FR should drastically increase the number of trains thru Brockton. This helps me personally have more options for when to go to and from work. It also makes the train a more viable means of getting people into downtown Brockton (if there was ever a reason to do that), which could/should/would be an impetus to additional TOD in my city. Which again benefits me personally, and 100k other folks in my area.

As it stands unfortunately, it does none of those things. The proposed cheapo plan hurts the existing M/L line, that is already underserved when compared to other lines in the system (OC trains being the only lines in the service without late night trains). The new plan hurts M/L as stated by moving the existing station. The shifted Taunton location makes it a poor car & ride setup versus a possible TOD driver and walk to station it should be in a downtown setting.

The time to NB/FR is not ideal, but also not a deal breaker as LRFOX has accurately indicated. That isn't the problem here. The big problem is way too much money to "upgrade" a system that may in fact be an overall downgrade. That's not an acceptable solution/option.

The Stoughton solution isn't perfect either as it also hurts existing services. But, does it have a better chance of driving up overall ridership? Probably yes. Can we shave off a billion bucks and do away with the single track bridge as F-Line suggests? Sounds great. That sounds like just about the amount required to double track thru Quincy/Dot. Great, do them both for $3B. That should help the most people possible.

My bottom line is, yes South Coast should have rail. I don't have a bottom line on how it should be done however. Just opinions, anecdotes, and what helps me the most.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

And you still haven't explained how you're going to avoid screwing the current Middleborough/Lakeville station - which currently has hundreds of units of housing directly around it. Any possible service through Middleborough is going to involve reducing or eliminating service to one of the best examples of successful TOD in the entire state. That alone should be a sign that going through Middleborough is a Bad Idea.

Also, heads up: You can't use the Middleborough Layover for Taunton service without either paying a pretty penny to modify it, or having some nasty operational issues from wyeing trains. It's designed to support trains coming from M/L. All of the locomotive support (oil pads, plug-ins, etc) are at the wrong end for trains coming from Cotley.

I'm sorry but this whining about the current Middleborough station is absurd. Its moving a quarter of a mile away, not 20 miles. Taunton currently doesn't have service. You don't screw everybody else just to give them 100% of what they want (a downtown station). I'm also curious if this is what everybody wants or just useless career hack Marc Pacheco. Regardless, either they get nothing, or they get a station by Cotley near the 24/140 highway interchange. What's that expression about the good of the many outweighing the good of the one?

As far as capacity goes, Phase I and Phase II of my proposal does nothing toc cause schedule or capacity issues. Its the same train on the same schedule as the current one that stop in Middleborough.

To your second point the state as a result of using this far cheaper option would have to pony up to modify the layover. I was unaware that this would be an issue but again it seems like a solvable one, albeit a consideration that needs to be quantified when we get updated numbers.