Providence RIPTA Services

Mark24 said:
Starting 9/3/16 RIPTA will provide service to Seekonk along Route 6 to Commerce Drivce (Shoppers Square) on the 32 and 34 routes
.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure how these contracts work, but Wouldn't that be an ideal location to extend SRTA from Fall River to create a RIPTA/SRTA transfer opportunity? I think that would be an excellent connection. I think GATRA serves Seekonk (the northern part), so it's probably impossible as Seekonk is GATRA territory. I wish it were easier to enable connections between the RTAs in this area. GATRA-SRTA-RIPTA would provide extensive regional coverage (RIPTA/GATRA have a connection, but SRTA covers a huge, highly populated chunk of the South Coast and doesn't touch either agency).
 
Lrfox said:
I'm not 100% sure how these contracts work, but Wouldn't that be an ideal location to extend SRTA from Fall River to create a RIPTA/SRTA transfer opportunity? I think that would be an excellent connection. I think GATRA serves Seekonk (the northern part), so it's probably impossible as Seekonk is GATRA territory. I wish it were easier to enable connections between the RTAs in this area. GATRA-SRTA-RIPTA would provide extensive regional coverage (RIPTA/GATRA have a connection, but SRTA covers a huge, highly populated chunk of the South Coast and doesn't touch either agency).
Click to expand...

SRTA goes as far west as Swansea and the furthest out Route 6 is the Swansea Mall. Seekonk is all GATRA territory and I have talked to them . They have had no calls to extend service down Route 152 to the southern part of Seekonk toward Route 6. I should point out that the new RIPTA service to Shoppers Square does not allow pickup or drop off along Route 6 in Massachusetts. It is direct service from the R.I. line to Shoppers Square.
 
Lrfox said:
I'm not 100% sure how these contracts work, but Wouldn't that be an ideal location to extend SRTA from Fall River to create a RIPTA/SRTA transfer opportunity? I think that would be an excellent connection. I think GATRA serves Seekonk (the northern part), so it's probably impossible as Seekonk is GATRA territory. I wish it were easier to enable connections between the RTAs in this area. GATRA-SRTA-RIPTA would provide extensive regional coverage (RIPTA/GATRA have a connection, but SRTA covers a huge, highly populated chunk of the South Coast and doesn't touch either agency).
Click to expand...

well, technically SRTA and RIPTA do touch at least by towns served. RIPTA is in both Barrington and Warren and SRTA goes into Swansea. This also takes place between Fall River and Westport with Tiverton. Trolley's and trains used to offer local service and buses also did for a while. But it has been over 50 years since the loss of local transit service.
 
Reviving this thread now that RIPTA finally has an update out on its High Capacity Transit Feasibility Study that aims to explore upgrades to the Central Falls- Warwick corridor, to potentially include LRT or upgrading the R-Line to proper BRT standards. Apparently now known as Metro Connector, it's added a couple of routing options to its map since, but it's begun it's public engagement process. The first public meeting is tomorrow, but there's a survey out now that I'd encourage people to fill out.

1000037221.png

Connecting Rhode Island: RIPTA Launches Metro Connector Study to Explore Faster, Expanded Transit Access - RIPTA

Public Invited to Share Feedback Through Online Survey and Public Meetings The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) is pleased to announce the launch of the Metro Connector Study, a major initiative to explore options for providing fast, frequent and reliable service that connects major...
www.ripta.com www.ripta.com
 

Attachments

  • 1000037219.jpg
    1000037219.jpg
    244.3 KB · Views: 111
This got held up for months last year when the RIDOT director became the chair of RIPTA's board, so I'm pleasantly surprised to see they got through the logjam and are now underway.

Not entirely clear to me whether they plan on running two separate lines. The map doesn't identify the two "loop" looking areas as alternatives, so at first glance, it looks like they're planning two separate lines that share northern and southern termini (plus a common trunk between Providence and Pawtucket along North Main St). But on the project webpage, they identify the two corridors as "Central Falls to CCRI" and "Providence to TF Green," which only really speaks to the southern "loop" hosting separate lines. Hopefully they don't treat the northern "loop" as an either-or proposition: Central Falls is absolutely dense enough to support both corridors.

Also, it's too bad they aren't taking this opportunity to study the shorter east-west corridor between Olneyville and the East Side that had shown up in earlier concepts (such as the last page of this policy paper). It ought to get another look...if full funding for both north-south corridors proves hard to come by in one bite, and there's an opportunity to swap one of them for the shorter east-west corridor during the initial build, it would be nice to have that option in their back pocket.
 
riptide said:
This got held up for months last year when the RIDOT director became the chair of RIPTA's board, so I'm pleasantly surprised to see they got through the logjam and are now underway.

Not entirely clear to me whether they plan on running two separate lines. The map doesn't identify the two "loop" looking areas as alternatives, so at first glance, it looks like they're planning two separate lines that share northern and southern termini (plus a common trunk between Providence and Pawtucket along North Main St). But on the project webpage, they identify the two corridors as "Central Falls to CCRI" and "Providence to TF Green," which only really speaks to the southern "loop" hosting separate lines. Hopefully they don't treat the northern "loop" as an either-or proposition: Central Falls is absolutely dense enough to support both corridors.
Click to expand...
From the survey:

RIPTA does not have to pick just one route to build. RIPTA is analyzing both routes separately to make sure that each one meets the needs of the people who will use them.
 
Stlin said:
Reviving this thread now that RIPTA finally has an update out on its High Capacity Transit Feasibility Study that aims to explore upgrades to the Central Falls- Warwick corridor, to potentially include LRT or upgrading the R-Line to proper BRT standards. Apparently now known as Metro Connector, it's added a couple of routing options to its map since, but it's begun it's public engagement process. The first public meeting is tomorrow, but there's a survey out now that I'd encourage people to fill out.

View attachment 55705
Click to expand...
Light Rail in the Providence metro area would be amazing. I really hope this ends up happening as LRT instead of BRT.
 
themissinglink said:
Light Rail in the Providence metro area would be amazing. I really hope this ends up happening as LRT instead of BRT.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Portions of those corridors are already at Green Line densities, and those that aren't could be shored up with TOD. But before we get too excited...

https://www.providencejournal.com/s...-transit-line-where-should-it-go/75250830007/

RIPTA spokeswoman Cristy Raposo Perry said while the Transit Master Plan routes provide a starting point, the study will not be limited to those options and can will look at various scenarios and route permutations.

Perhaps more ominously for transit advocates, she said RIPTA is also looking at whether the new line will get dedicated lanes to make it faster or run in street traffic like a conventional bus.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they aren't even committed to the idea of dedicated lanes yet. Without dedicated lanes, this would basically be the R-Line concept, but applied over a longer distance. That would still be an improvement over what exists today, but not a transformative one.
 
RIPTA published this StoryMap recently to explain how they've conducted their Metro Connector review so far. They've gotten to the point of selecting four alternative alignments for consideration: two for LRT, two for BRT.

They don't really explain why the LRT lines have to end at Park Avenue and couldn't simply continue south on the same routes the BRT lines would take. The only thing I saw in the StoryMap that might explain it is a "composite demand" map that shows a gap in demand for high-capacity transit between Park Avenue and the airport. But it's not unheard of for an LRT line to pass through a low-density area on its way to an important destination (such as the airport). After all, the BRT lines on the map would do exactly that! And it's also not as if there's a pre-defined budget RIPTA must stick to that effectively limits how much LRT they can build, since this is only a feasibility study. Feels kind of like a false choice.

1753304185055.png
 
This just doesn't seem like a good use case for LRT. There are really only three service reasons to use LRT over BRT:
  • Capacity: If buses at high frequency can't handle the loads, LRT might be able to. Around 1000 passengers per hour per direction is the point where buses start having difficulty providing enough capacity, especially if mixed traffic and signals lower reliability.
  • Dedicated ROW: LRT does great on dedicated ROW like former rail lines, where it can match the speed of buses, and can often fit better than a busway. Conversely, in mixed traffic or with lots of traffic lights, BRT can be substantially faster than buses. Laying embedded tracks in streets also tends to be expensive.
  • Going where buses can't: If buses physically can't use the alignment - through-running with existing LRT, time-shared tracks with freight, reusing tunnels too narrow for buses, etc - then LRT can be better. Because LRT can handle the same loads at lower frequency, you can get away with single-track pinches where a single lane would be a problem.
The second and third reasons don't apply here, since it's all on-street. The R-Line (more or less the alternative 1 alignment) had 5,500 daily riders in 2022, well within what buses can handle, and I wouldn't expect a huge ridership increase without a corresponding improvement in speed+frequency+reliability. For the same level of service, LRT will be more expensive to build and operate, and it will likely be slower as well. That's not to say BRT is a magic bullet - it still needs to be designed and operated well - but I think it's the more appropriate mode for Providence. It also lends itself well to high-frequency trunks with branches, which is exactly what this map suggests the demand looks like.
 
The EGE said:
This just doesn't seem like a good use case for LRT. There are really only three service reasons to use LRT over BRT:
  • Capacity: If buses at high frequency can't handle the loads, LRT might be able to. Around 1000 passengers per hour per direction is the point where buses start having difficulty providing enough capacity, especially if mixed traffic and signals lower reliability.
  • Dedicated ROW: LRT does great on dedicated ROW like former rail lines, where it can match the speed of buses, and can often fit better than a busway. Conversely, in mixed traffic or with lots of traffic lights, BRT can be substantially faster than buses. Laying embedded tracks in streets also tends to be expensive.
  • Going where buses can't: If buses physically can't use the alignment - through-running with existing LRT, time-shared tracks with freight, reusing tunnels too narrow for buses, etc - then LRT can be better. Because LRT can handle the same loads at lower frequency, you can get away with single-track pinches where a single lane would be a problem.
The second and third reasons don't apply here, since it's all on-street. The R-Line (more or less the alternative 1 alignment) had 5,500 daily riders in 2022, well within what buses can handle, and I wouldn't expect a huge ridership increase without a corresponding improvement in speed+frequency+reliability. For the same level of service, LRT will be more expensive to build and operate, and it will likely be slower as well. That's not to say BRT is a magic bullet - it still needs to be designed and operated well - but I think it's the more appropriate mode for Providence. It also lends itself well to high-frequency trunks with branches, which is exactly what this map suggests the demand looks like.
Click to expand...
Your point about capacity is well-taken; I’m not even sure they’re at the point where they “need” to build BRT. In a world where your transit investment program revolved mainly around improving service when and where it’s needed, a more practical first step in the direction of LRT/BRT would be to provide R-Line style service on the corridors shown on their map so that you can at least establish the travel patterns, in terms of all the different potential O/D pairs, that you’d like to eventually serve with a more robust transit mode. Then as time goes on, and ridership grows along these corridors, you add amenities until you’re running true BRT, and later, if your chosen corridor has the right grades, curve radii, etc, you switch to LRT.

Seems to me that they’re banking on big ridership increases to justify the capacity that LRT/BRT would offer. So maybe a key unstated goal of this project is to spur transit-oriented development?

One thing I will say in their defense, though, is that their StoryMap does say they consider Dedicated ROW to be a defining feature of rapid transit and that sufficient ROW space for those lanes was a factor in their analysis.
 
I fully agree with R-Line style service as a near-term ridership-priming strategy. Unlike converting to LRT, converting a regular bus corridor to BRT can be done piecemeal (by upgrade or by segment) with benefits from each piece.
 
I think ridership of public transportation would increase with an LRT. You can't underestimate the perceived "perception" of riding rail vs a city bus. For example, if you visit another city, I'm sure most would ride the LRT than a bus.
 
Rhody said:
I think ridership of public transportation would increase with an LRT. You can't underestimate the perceived "perception" of riding rail vs a city bus. For example, if you visit another city, I'm sure most would ride the LRT than a bus.
Click to expand...
Generally, I agree with the idea that fixed rail transit is better at increasing ridership than any bus service, no matter how it's branded. But as a Providence resident, I don't think this particular LRT alternative would have that effect. It'll be slow running with mixed traffic (potentially slower than BRT). So it's highly unlikely to lure drivers out of their cars and I'm not sure it provides a drastically improved level of service relative to BRT (which is far cheaper to run). I'm all for LRT in Providence, but if they're going to do it, they need to do it right. Specifically, a designated right of way along as much of the route as possible so that it presents a better option than driving to the people that already drive. That's not easy to do.
 
Lrfox said:
Generally, I agree with the idea that fixed rail transit is better at increasing ridership than any bus service, no matter how it's branded. But as a Providence resident, I don't think this particular LRT alternative would have that effect. It'll be slow running with mixed traffic (potentially slower than BRT). So it's highly unlikely to lure drivers out of their cars and I'm not sure it provides a drastically improved level of service relative to BRT (which is far cheaper to run). I'm all for LRT in Providence, but if they're going to do it, they need to do it right. Specifically, a designated right of way along as much of the route as possible so that it presents a better option than driving to the people that already drive. That's not easy to do.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The corridor in the study is much more suited for BRT. LRT makes a lot more sense where the infrastructure is already there. Here is a map of the two transit tunnels, with the East Side Trolley Tunnel in red and the East Side Railroad Tunnel in blue:
pvd tunnels.png


Maybe they could lower the west end of the train tunnel and extend it below North Main Street and the Moshassuck River to the train station? Then later they could extend it to the railroad ROW where a new portal would be, from which the LRT would follow the railroad tracks to Olneyville. Stops would be something like Olneyville-Atwells Avenue/Federal Hill-Providence Place-Providence Train Station/New RIPTA Hub-Benefit Street-Brown Street/Trolley Tunnel-Thayer Street-Hope Street-Gano Park.
 
Ryanontherails said:
Maybe they could lower the west end of the train tunnel and extend it below North Main Street and the Moshassuck River to the train station? Then later they could extend it to the railroad ROW where a new portal would be, from which the LRT would follow the railroad tracks to Olneyville. Stops would be something like Olneyville-Atwells Avenue/Federal Hill-Providence Place-Providence Train Station/New RIPTA Hub-Benefit Street-Brown Street/Trolley Tunnel-Thayer Street-Hope Street-Gano Park.
Click to expand...
The alignment you’re describing would be very expensive to construct because neither of the existing rail corridors you’re looking at lends itself to an easy retrofit. The East Side Railroad Tunnel runs deep under the hill. I’m pretty sure it’s around 75 feet below Thayer Street. So the stations at Brown, Thayer, and Hope would be (and cost) more like subway stations. The Northeast Corridor ROW pinches down around Atwells Avenue and would require various bridge and retaining wall demolitions to widen so you could drop LRT tracks next to it. And connecting the two would be a new tunnel under a river and the city’s rail station.

So while looking for unused/grade separated corridors is generally a prudent way of setting up a modern LRT line, with *these* specific corridors, you’d be looking at a project with a price tag in the low to mid billions. It would be more cost-effective to form your alignment out of dedicated surface transit lanes (maybe reusing the East Side Trolley Tunnel, as it’s short enough you don’t need to build any underground stations).

All this is hypothetical, of course, when you remember that Rhode Island is about to underfund its existing, conventional bus system. That’s maybe my biggest head-scratcher about the Metro Connector study: why go through all the trouble of studying a $1+ billion transit project when the state won’t even cough up an extra $17 million to pay for what they already have?
 
riptide said:
The alignment you’re describing would be very expensive to construct because neither of the existing rail corridors you’re looking at lends itself to an easy retrofit. The East Side Railroad Tunnel runs deep under the hill. I’m pretty sure it’s around 75 feet below Thayer Street. So the stations at Brown, Thayer, and Hope would be (and cost) more like subway stations. The Northeast Corridor ROW pinches down around Atwells Avenue and would require various bridge and retaining wall demolitions to widen so you could drop LRT tracks next to it. And connecting the two would be a new tunnel under a river and the city’s rail station.

So while looking for unused/grade separated corridors is generally a prudent way of setting up a modern LRT line, with *these* specific corridors, you’d be looking at a project with a price tag in the low to mid billions. It would be more cost-effective to form your alignment out of dedicated surface transit lanes (maybe reusing the East Side Trolley Tunnel, as it’s short enough you don’t need to build any underground stations).

All this is hypothetical, of course, when you remember that Rhode Island is about to underfund its existing, conventional bus system. That’s maybe my biggest head-scratcher about the Metro Connector study: why go through all the trouble of studying a $1+ billion transit project when the state won’t even cough up an extra $17 million to pay for what they already have?
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, a similar proposal was put in the Transit Forward 2040 plan a few years ago, though it has since been taken out, presumably due to cost:
ripta.jpg


I don't know where their stops were supposed to be though. It's curious that they apparently preferred to use the rail tunnel instead of the bus tunnel for the route to East Providence.

Also, I figured it could be piecemeal- start with just the rail tunnel and extend it 1500' to the train station for starters. After that, who knows where it would go. It doesn't necessarily need to go to Olneyville.

Looking at this map and the proposals, I'm starting to warm up to the idea of the LRT from Central Falls to Warwick taking the same route as it does in this map, which is a bit longer than one of the alternatives outlined in the study.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top