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

[themissinglink]

I may have gone a little overboard in implying that service would necessarily be on the chopping block, though I still think it's a possibility depending on the economics, even if not a very likely one.

IMO there's more of a risk of Phase II never happening as a result of low ridership and less of a risk of the entire service being cut due to low ridership, but your predictions of the whole thing being cut due to the ridership are not out of this world seeing as how infrequent the service will be.

 

[Brattle Loop]

IMO there's more of a risk of Phase II never happening as a result of low ridership and less of a risk of the entire service being cut due to low ridership, but your predictions of the whole thing being cut due to the ridership are not out of this world seeing as how infrequent the service will be.

Yeah, I don't think it's likely to get chopped simply for low ridership so much as the low ridership likely (at least in part) induced from the poor schedule both makes Phase II unlikely and means that SCR would be among the low-hanging fruit (along with Greenbush) for temporary (or temporary-to-permanent) cuts in the event of future unanticipated operational or budget issues. That all of that results from bad decision-making is...irksome.

 

[HenryAlan]

From a broader view of what really is equitable on a regional level, I also think it’s both arrogant, unfair, and unrealistic to assume that every low income employee is breaking down the door to get into the Boston markets. Why does Boston have to be the hub for every line? How about we actually build a network of cities and employment hubs that looks at the actual geography of the population and transit needs, and accelerates those patterns with transit? We could accomplish the south coast network and it would build jobs and resiliency and save people a 2 hour expensive train ride, too.

Yes, that was really the larger point I was getting at. LRT might not be specifically what is needed down there, but there has to be something much more helpful that could be done for the sort of money being invested in a train to Boston that few people will ever ride. I would love to see the state spend a few billion dollars upgrading RTAs in some fashion so that they can be truly helpful to the folks that live outside the Boston commuting catchment.

 

[FK4]

Yes, that was really the larger point I was getting at. LRT might not be specifically what is needed down there, but there has to be something much more helpful that could be done for the sort of money being invested in a train to Boston that few people will ever ride. I would love to see the state spend a few billion dollars upgrading RTAs in some fashion so that they can be truly helpful to the folks that live outside the Boston commuting catchment.

Yes. But a big rail project = union jobs and the unions pay a lot of money to local political campaigns. So, there's that.

And, big rail projects are just but one of the many ways people get hung up on big shiny objects as being the magic solution to problems, rather than the less glamorous but more meaningful smaller things that could be done for a lower cost, and, more importantly (if we actually really care about improving lives, rather than just talking about improving lives as a neat concept), now, rather than in 20 years.

Hire a MIT student group to figure out the transit needs of NB and FR and then study solutions, rather than imposing a CR project that's not gonna do all that much.

Granted, longer range we need to build out our rail network, it's just that as we've said, when resources are finite and the suffering is now, you should at least be doing parallel work with both solutions for 2022 and 2040, not just 2040.

 

[Lrfox]

Even if SCR is an utter failure, you're still talking in the realm of a thousand riders a day. It'll limp along like Greenbush, too much a political football to kill, with heavily padding schedules to prevent the rest of the Old Colony riders from complaining.

I don't know if I completely agree with this. I've generally been in the "building a flawed SCR is better than no SCR" camp, but I don't think it's all that kill-resistant from a political standpoint. This is a service that, for more than a generation, has been pitched as the region's savior. People have been told that it'll singlehandedly turn FR/NB into thriving economic hubs by whisking white collar commuters from their affordable historic waterfront homes to their offices in Boston while simultaneously stimulating the local economy by creating a never ending stream of tourists that will fill local restaurants, shops, bars, etc.

If SCR is coming short of those expectations by running 90 or so minute trips to South Station with a limited number of passengers and people start noticing that it hasn't been the sole savior in revitalizing FR/NB that was sold to them, it won't be hard to change the attitude about the service. The next non-Charlie Baker governor is likely going to be a Dem. Less likely is that it's a Republican, but from a different camp of the MA Republican party. Each of them will be more than happy to paint SCR as a failure of Baker to deliver on his promises. As long as it's accompanies by promises to continue the investment in the Southcoast in other ways (road/highway infrastructure, wind power, education/vocational opportunities, etc.) and to "study" ways to improve transit access to Boston, I don't think pulling the plug is necessarily political suicide. Especially if the services is as bad as people here expect it to be.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I don't know if I completely agree with this. I've generally been in the "building a flawed SCR is better than no SCR" camp, but I don't think it's all that kill-resistant from a political standpoint. This is a service that, for more than a generation, has been pitched as the region's savior. People have been told that it'll singlehandedly turn FR/NB into thriving economic hubs by whisking white collar commuters from their affordable historic waterfront homes to their offices in Boston while simultaneously stimulating the local economy by creating a never ending stream of tourists that will fill local restaurants, shops, bars, etc.

If SCR is coming short of those expectations by running 90 or so minute trips to South Station with a limited number of passengers and people start noticing that it hasn't been the sole savior in revitalizing FR/NB that was sold to them, it won't be hard to change the attitude about the service. The next non-Charlie Baker governor is likely going to be a Dem. Less likely is that it's a Republican, but from a different camp of the MA Republican party. Each of them will be more than happy to paint SCR as a failure of Baker to deliver on his promises. As long as it's accompanies by promises to continue the investment in the Southcoast in other ways (road/highway infrastructure, wind power, education/vocational opportunities, etc.) and to "study" ways to improve transit access to Boston, I don't think pulling the plug is necessarily political suicide. Especially if the services is as bad as people here expect it to be.

Given how much of a political project this has been, I don't think it's likely to be chopped just for the sake of it. The poor-quality service induced (at least in part) by the cheapskate way they did Phase I (relying on the Old Colony main) undermines SCR from the get-go, and is very likely to result in artificially depressed ridership because of how sparse the schedules will be. That's going to show up, on the data sheets and Globe articles read by people (read: politicians) who don't know the details, as a failure not unlike Greenbush's anemic ridership, rather than an indictment of the unnecessarily-poor utility resulting from the half-assed build.

The problem is that that gets read as a project failure, as a lack of demand, and therefore as a lack of need. Political pressure is really what's getting this built (poorly, in classic Baker fashion) and it will sustain it for a while even at lousy ridership numbers unless literally no one uses it. Unfortunately, everyone else with transit service has politicians too, and once SCR has been built the ability to use the "we don't have any transit" unfairness argument goes out the window, so the next time the budget crunch comes, SCR's stuck duking it out with everyone else in the game of budgetary musical chairs. If the numbers are as anemic as this board tends to worry they will be, that makes them some of the lowest-hanging fruit, because of how potent the argument is that "hey, we tried it, we built it, you guys just didn't use it" even if it's disingenuous at best. It's absolutely not political suicide to kill a money-wasting enterprise, and even though it'd not do anything useful for a politician with South Coast voters, it'd be an easy way for a governor to burnish his/her credentials as fiscally responsible (and, for the cynical type, to take the "SCR money" and move it to somewhere else where the squeaky wheels need greasing).

 

[Java King]

As someone who lives in the Greenbush area, I do see some positives happening recently along Greenbush that could also impact SCR:

• Greenbush services started in 2007. So, it's been 14 years of service. It's good to establish a known service level for people buying homes, etc.
• TOD has finally started happening at several stations along the line including the terminus at Greenbush.
• The MBTA's implementation of a partial effort to provide consistent hourly service is the right direction to improve ridership.
• Weekend fare passes and other fare proposals can increase ridership.

I've been harping for 14 years that the train has to have a consistent, flexible schedule and pricing to make it attractive. I think Transit Matters really understands this concept and has been pushing the MBTA to make improvements.

SCR is severely flawed for all the reasons people mentioned. However my hope is that it can be made to work with possible express trains from FR/NB like on the Worcester line. Plus the addition of a more clock-facing schedule, and then eventually the Phase 2 full electric build as quickly as possible.

 

[RandomWalk]

FR/NB seem to be more closely aligned geographically with Providence than Boston. Too bad there isn’t a RoW to service that market

 

[themissinglink]

However my hope is that it can be made to work with possible express trains from FR/NB like on the Worcester line. Plus the addition of a more clock-facing schedule

I would love to see any type of service increase for Phase 1, but I'm somewhat doubtful that any meaningful service increases would be possible due to the single-track Old Colony mainline through Dorchester and Quincy.

It's too bad that modifications to JFK/UMass and Quincy Center for 2 track center platforms (exactly what F-Line has proposed before) weren't a prerequisite to Phase 1 SCR, or even part of the project entirely.

 

[Lrfox]

Given how much of a political project this has been, I don't think it's likely to be chopped just for the sake of it. The poor-quality service induced (at least in part) by the cheapskate way they did Phase I (relying on the Old Colony main) undermines SCR from the get-go, and is very likely to result in artificially depressed ridership because of how sparse the schedules will be. That's going to show up, on the data sheets and Globe articles read by people (read: politicians) who don't know the details, as a failure not unlike Greenbush's anemic ridership, rather than an indictment of the unnecessarily-poor utility resulting from the half-assed build.

The problem is that that gets read as a project failure, as a lack of demand, and therefore as a lack of need. Political pressure is really what's getting this built (poorly, in classic Baker fashion) and it will sustain it for a while even at lousy ridership numbers unless literally no one uses it. Unfortunately, everyone else with transit service has politicians too, and once SCR has been built the ability to use the "we don't have any transit" unfairness argument goes out the window, so the next time the budget crunch comes, SCR's stuck duking it out with everyone else in the game of budgetary musical chairs. If the numbers are as anemic as this board tends to worry they will be, that makes them some of the lowest-hanging fruit, because of how potent the argument is that "hey, we tried it, we built it, you guys just didn't use it" even if it's disingenuous at best. It's absolutely not political suicide to kill a money-wasting enterprise, and even though it'd not do anything useful for a politician with South Coast voters, it'd be an easy way for a governor to burnish his/her credentials as fiscally responsible (and, for the cynical type, to take the "SCR money" and move it to somewhere else where the squeaky wheels need greasing).

Right, that's essentially what I'm saying. Political pressure is the reason the half-baked proposal is being pushed forward as-is. For the last 20+ years, rail has been pitched to the region as the thing that's going to correct all of the area's ills. It was never going to be the sole savior of the region, but as-built, it's unlikely to do much of anything apart from serving a few hundred riders per day from each city. So not only is it easy for Globe reading politicians to point it out as a "failure"/ low-hanging fruit, the people living in Fall River/New Bedford will no longer be clinging to the notion that SCR is the key to the region's success. For close to a quarter of a century, you could not succeed as a politician in the South Coast if you didn't jump on board the South Coast Rail bandwagon. A "completed" phase one that serves the region as poorly as this proposal appears it is going to will pretty quickly change the local feeling towards the rail connection to Boston from "we need it!" to "it's a waste." It will no longer be a death sentence to oppose it, even if the bigger issue was really the flawed project.

 

[Stlin]

Combined with the discussion over in the MassDOT rail thread, This actually lends itself to an interesting hypothetical: You are MassDOT secretary. You have been given 2.5 Billion 2020 dollars in federal funding, which cannot be diverted to another mode. To access it, you alone must choose to advance one of 2 projects; you cannot complete both. It is up to you to choose which one will be a better use of limited funds and will be better for the commonwealth as a whole. Which one would you choose, and why?

1. You can complete SCR Full Build, restoring the Stoughton alignment with electrification. (The 2017 full build cost estimate was ~3.4 billion, - ~1.1 Phase 1= 2.3B + time escalation)
2. You can build some version of East-West rail. (The cheaper build alternatives come in around that Mark, option 3 coming in at ~2.4B in 2020 dollars.)

Given the realities of constrained fiscal means, I honestly think that in the before 2035 timeframe it'll come down to a choice between the two.

Much like SCR was, E-W rail is being pitched as the shot in the arm that will cure the ailing economies of Western Mass urban centers - and their ridership numbers are no worse than projected for SCR (?)

Personally... I think I'd advance SCR, but that's not relying on any empirical data whatsoever- just a personal opinion. The EW alignment isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but SCR would have significant knock on effects on the rest of the network. With Full Build, you can conceivably have timed meets at Canton Junction to provide 2 seat rides to Providence, (far from ideal, but possible / future service via the Attleboro connector) as well as providing relief for the Old Colony Line and attendant possible extension to Bourne & The Cape.

Politically however.... Now that Fall River and New Bedford have their trains, no matter how hampered... I think Springfield may have a strong argument for being included in the connectivity map for the sake of completionism if nothing else.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Combined with the discussion over in the MassDOT rail thread, This actually lends itself to an interesting hypothetical: You are MassDOT secretary. You have been given 2.5 Billion 2020 dollars in federal funding, which cannot be diverted to another mode. To access it, you alone must choose to advance one of 2 projects; you cannot complete both. It is up to you to choose which one will be a better use of limited funds and will be better for the commonwealth as a whole. Which one would you choose, and why?

1. You can complete SCR Full Build, restoring the Stoughton alignment with electrification. (The 2017 full build cost estimate was ~3.4 billion, - ~1.1 Phase 1= 2.3B + time escalation)
2. You can build some version of East-West rail. (The cheaper build alternatives come in around that Mark, option 3 coming in at ~2.4B in 2020 dollars.)

Given the realities of constrained fiscal means, I honestly think that in the before 2035 timeframe it'll come down to a choice between the two.

Much like SCR was, E-W rail is being pitched as the shot in the arm that will cure the ailing economies of Western Mass urban centers - and their ridership numbers are no worse than projected for SCR (?)

Personally... I think I'd advance SCR, but that's not relying on any empirical data whatsoever- just a personal opinion. The EW alignment isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but SCR would have significant knock on effects on the rest of the network. With Full Build, you can conceivably have timed meets at Canton Junction to provide 2 seat rides to Providence, (far from ideal, but possible / future service via the Attleboro connector) as well as providing relief for the Old Colony Line and attendant possible extension to Bourne & The Cape.

Politically however.... Now that Fall River and New Bedford have their trains, no matter how hampered... I think Springfield may have a strong argument for being included in the connectivity map for the sake of completionism if nothing else.

I'd do full-build SCR and roll the dice on Amtrak and NY helping out with East-West to bolster their Springfield, Albany, and other services. At least out west there's some other interested parties, SCR is basically all-Massachusetts.

 

[Tallguy]

Not even close. East West. Inland Route electrified, Amtrak New Haven dinkies extended to Albany

 

[OldColony]

Not even close. South Coast Rail phase 2, if it also results in the extension of commuter rail to Buzzards Bay. It would provide the level of service that the gateway cities of Taunton, New Bedford and Fall River should have, as well as serve Wareham and Buzzards Bay. The Buzzards Bay extension can be had for well under $100 million, at a 1/10th or so capital cost per projected passenger than South Coast Rail phase 1, and it would serve the town of Wareham and Buzzards Bay village, both of similar socioeconomic situation as New Bedford and Fall River. An added benefit is improved infrastructure for seasonal service to the Cape.

 

[RandomWalk]

East West. The SCR and Cape are terminal nodes in the rail network. East West is a interior connection that facilitates so many other improvements to the greater network.

 

[Arlington]

East West as Fast Diesel (the 4/5 Hybrid) (note that Brightline in Fla is being built as 125mph diesel) so that it can keep going fast either dogleg north or south after it does BOS-SPG.

 

[Tallguy]

East West as Fast Diesel (the 4/5 Hybrid) (note that Brightline in Fla is being built as 125mph diesel) so that it can keep going fast either dogleg north or south after it does BOS-SPG.

So, when this is built in say 7-8 yrs(2029-30) How long do you think we will be able to run those new diesels?

 

[bigeman312]

Put me down as another vote for East-West.

Worcester + Springfield (+ enhanced potential to all points west) >>> New Bedford + Fall River

It’s a bit out of scope for this discussion, but I’ll use this opportunity to advocate for New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail on a cost-basis.

In 2014 dollars it was found that the most expensive alternative (Concord Regional) came in at $226m.

Obviously it has not happened due to being a New Hampshire project, rather than Massachusetts. We are loosely discussing federal dollars here though, and some money from this bill will be competing across state lines, and ultimately all three of these projects are somewhat comparable in their nature: investing in regional rail that connects smaller cities to Boston, from 40-80 miles out. It’s striking how great of an ROI that is in comparison to SCR.

 

[Arlington]

So, when this is built in say 7-8 yrs(2029-30) How long do you think we will be able to run those new diesels?

I don’t understand the question. I’m all for electrifying MBTA territory where high frequency, dispatch reliability, and closely spaced stops argue for electrification

SPG-BOS, even at hourly is more like Brightline, and is CSX territory. How would you justify electric? I’d only consider it after NHV-SPG and WOR-BOS have been electrified

Note that from an emission standpoint diesels can also be run on biofuels

 

[Arlington]

[Mod Note: I feel a thread reorg coming on. If we really are comparing projects it should go in the infrastructure or MassDOT threads. Pure EW should go in EW]