Crazy Transit Pitches

[Riverside]

In the future, Interstate corridors will (should) be used as (median running) HSR corridors wherever it is possible to do so, to minimize the impact of HSR service on local/regional trains and to allow for the ROW to be optimized for higher top speeds. Running HSR down Interstate medians also provides great advertising (nothing like a train blowing past your traffic jam at 300+ kmph...), creates potential for rail projects to benefit from highway money, and reinforces the notion that roads and rails can coexist instead of being mutually exclusive. 195 (or, one can hope, future I-82) would therefore be used for a Hartford-Providence-Hyannis HSR line.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea, and I-195 is so straight, it makes perfect sense. Some parts would probably have to be elevated, but it just wouldn't be that hard. I'm just rather pessimistic about the whole thing.

Newport might not 'want' commuter service yet/ever, but the rest of the state wants it, I imagine Salve Regina and people using the 60 bus want it, and the city of Newport just might need it. And even if they don't want it now, I'm confident they'll be wanting it in the future.

Very good points. I'm still skeptical, and think that FR-Newport monies would be better spent on PVD-FR service, but I agree that the former will eventually become necessary. Still, people don't always realize that something is necessary, and sometimes oppose it anyways even if they do.

The ROW that would be used to extend from Forge Park to Woonsocket, as I understand it, is so torn up and encroached upon and problematic that using it for anything is going to be like pulling teeth, but it is worth doing in my opinion. Similarly, a Providence-Worcester line would be great if we can get it.

Really? I'm surprised that the ROW is so encroached upon. Looking at Google Maps, it doesn't look that bad. Heck, at least you can see most of the ROW in the satellite images, which is more than you can say some of the time. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just surprised. (Just checking: you do mean the Franklin-Woonsocket corridor [which would technically require some reworking to be feasible], right? The MBTA extension to Forge Park doesn't actually go on that route, instead going on the route that eventually ends up in Bellingham, Milford and I believe up to Framingham in the end.)

I definitely agree about Providence-Worcester, and I actually think this would not be unrealistic in the next 25 years, particularly if service to Woonsocket begins in the next 10. (It's just not that far from Woonsocket up to Worcester, especially for an active ROW.) I do, however, think that it may not be necessary to include a full RIDOT network (including a Worcester line) on Omaja's map.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- there is no justification in the Northeast Corridor to go faster than 250 kph -- the distances are short enough -- you just need keep stops to a minimum

Cost of pushing the train start to climb rapidly with top speed running while the total travel time is not much changed as long as you keep the start/stop process to a minimum

The standard speed to set for HSR in the northeast should be 300 kmph, which gives you a ~4 hour trip between Boston and Chicago, and ~3 hours from Boston to either D.C. or Montreal, factoring in limited stops. 300 kmph trains are in use all over the world right now, no new tech needed.

Anything faster than 300 is excessive for the northeast, yes, but we'll need 400 kmph trains for areas outside outside of the northeast... like D.C. to Miami.

Really? I'm surprised that the ROW is so encroached upon. Looking at Google Maps, it doesn't look that bad. Heck, at least you can see most of the ROW in the satellite images, which is more than you can say some of the time. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just surprised. (Just checking: you do mean the Franklin-Woonsocket corridor [which would technically require some reworking to be feasible], right? The MBTA extension to Forge Park doesn't actually go on that route, instead going on the route that eventually ends up in Bellingham, Milford and I believe up to Framingham in the end.)

I was referring to the Franklin route, yes, which got turned into the Trunkline Trail - which you can't even walk on end to end because most of the bridges (that aren't gone completely) are unsafe for crossing. Part of it is paved over, as well. Though, according to the Woonsocket Commuter Rail report (http://www.dot.state.ri.us/documents/intermodal/WoonComRailFinalRpt.pdf), the first on a list of challenges to a Forge Park extension is "Unavailable right-of way and encroachment in Woonsocket and Bellingham," so I'm not sure it'd be any easier to go the Forge Park route rather than branching the line.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The ROW that would be used to extend from Forge Park to Woonsocket, as I understand it, is so torn up and encroached upon and problematic that using it for anything is going to be like pulling teeth, but it is worth doing in my opinion. Similarly, a Providence-Worcester line would be great if we can get it.

The RIDOT Boston-Woonsocket study looked at the old-old Boston-Woonsocket route, the Boston & Pascoag main (a.k.a. the Needham Line), which is hacked up to bits between Medway and Bellingham and under dubious ownership inside of Bellingham. A bizarre study choice because, 1) nothing from Bellingham Jct. to Harris Pond is landbanked or even publicly owned, having been abandoned long before the public ownership era; 2) the indirectness of going north to Forge Park and Bellingham to go south to Woonsocket is batty; 3) the changed water level at Harris Pond and required engineering around that (punch it up in HistoricAerials and look how the water level swallows up the old RR embankment over the course of the last 40 years); and 4) how friggin' tight the encroachment is on the abandoned tracks in Woonsocket. It's nonsensical.

The Franklin main to Blackstone is fully landbanked. It junctioned with the P&W on the other side of the Blackstone River. It's a dead-ass straight shot from Franklin Jct., mostly grade-separated, and a former high-speed intercity route to New Haven. And, an easy one to accommodate rail w/trail because it's got an unusually wide vegetation buffer surrounding the ROW (not that the unpaved SNE Trunkline Trail is much to write home about, being disconnected from the rest of the trail system by the Blackstone bridge being out). From what I gather DCR was being pissy to them back in '93 about studying it and that's what caused its demotion from the study options, but that was when the agency fiefdoms were really really fiefdoms. Don't have to bother with the EPA permitting showstopper that would be Harris Pond...go straight to the old MBTA stop in Blackstone on 122, build a new river crossing, rebuild the wye onto the P&W, and go around-the-horn on P&W the 1.5 miles to the Woonsocket stop. That's faster and loads, loads cheaper than trying to bring back the dead/gone/possibly-illegal B&P route. And few abutters en route.

Forge Park will be extended to Milford someday. On the timetables this connection to Woonsocket is dealing with there's no risk of that stop being orphaned. Milford and Woonsocket branches simply fork at Franklin Jct. like they did in olden times.

Look, Ma, it's got freight stakeholders, too: http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/5_mee...sentations/Fram Rail infrastructure 09 r4.pdf (p.25 of PDF). Note: I'm a little puzzled as to whose freight interests this exactly serves so I think someone at the MPO might've been brainstorming out loud. But yes, other people have been thinking about this too and giving presentations on it to rooms full of curious citizenry. It maybe doesn't rate at quite the level of must-have as a restored Stoughton Branch at offering up a fistfull of new routing and load-spreading options for the rail system, but there's a whole lot of future action opened up for a lot of different stakeholders (including AMTK, which studied this as a potential--if not likely--inland HSR routing) to get the Franklin Line tied back to the outside world at Blackstone. The pull's going to be inevitable over time for restoring this connection. Only point of debate is just how many decades out that is. If there's a Top 3 list of must-have regional restorations, this slots behind Stoughton and somewhere from close to not-very-close behind Newburyport-Portsmouth on the Eastern Route depending on how hot/cold the freight interests run here (i.e. under what business arrangements would CSX actually be willing to allow P&W into SE Mass...and profit from allowing it).

 

[whighlander]

The standard speed to set for HSR in the northeast should be 300 kmph, which gives you a ~4 hour trip between Boston and Chicago, and ~3 hours from Boston to either D.C. or Montreal, factoring in limited stops. 300 kmph trains are in use all over the world right now, no new tech needed.

Anything faster than 300 is excessive for the northeast, yes, but we'll need 400 kmph trains for areas outside outside of the northeast... like D.C. to Miami.

Commute -- you do understand that the power necessary to move through the air increases with the cube of the speed. This is not important at low speeds where other losses such as rolling friction are important. Howerver, as you crest 200 kph you are starting to be dominated by air resistance.

On this basis going from 200 to 400 increases the power requirements for overcoming air resistance drag by a factor of 8. Even going from 200 kph to 300 kph increases that aspect of power demand by more than a factor of 3. Of course the time to travel decreases fairly inversely with speed -- assuming keep to a minimum starting and stopping so the net effect with respect to energy consumption is more like 2.25 times greater

Anyway -- I'm hightly skeptical that anyone will build a 400 km per hour train in the US unless it is maglev in an evacuated tube -- in which case might as well go for 600 km per hour or even faster -- I'd like a 1 hour Bos to Wash train -- of course I miss the views

 

[Semass]

Perhaps it is just semantics, but as we discuss Commuter Rail extensions to Woonsocket, Portsmouth, Westerly, Nashua, Plaistow, New Bedford, Fall River and other far flung locations, aren't we really beyond the scope of "commuter" rail. With Boston as the hub of the system, these are some long rides and perhaps out of range for the workaday commuter. This is not to say I am against these ideas - I am quite in favor - but perhaps we ought to rethink the meaning of the network as the Regional Rail System. Commuter Rail suggests that its purpose is rush hour runs to bring commuters in and out of Boston. Recent projects would indicate that there is much more regional mobility relying on the CR system thank just the am/pm rush.

 

[whighlander]

Perhaps it is just semantics, but as we discuss Commuter Rail extensions to Woonsocket, Portsmouth, Westerly, Nashua, Plaistow, New Bedford, Fall River and other far flung locations, aren't we really beyond the scope of "commuter" rail. With Boston as the hub of the system, these are some long rides and perhaps out of range for the workaday commuter. This is not to say I am against these ideas - I am quite in favor - but perhaps we ought to rethink the meaning of the network as the Regional Rail System. Commuter Rail suggests that its purpose is rush hour runs to bring commuters in and out of Boston. Recent projects would indicate that there is much more regional mobility relying on the CR system thank just the am/pm rush.

Seamass -- I think that you have a point -- although the majority of the boardings out even at the radius of Fitchburg have Boston or at least Cambridge as their destination.

In fact conincidentaly -- I just spent the better part of an hour looking at a voluminus report on the proposed Foxboro Station / Service. It's quite clear from that report which looked at both the Forge Park and Fairmount (Indigo Line) that based on the actual data collected (2009?) that it still is basically a hub and spoke system.

I would think that today the only cases where its more potentially about regional mobility than strict CR would be:
Providence
Worcester
Lowell

But even wih those large city cores -- the overwhelming flow is inbound to Boston in the AM and out in the PM. Of course the tendancy of the service to be designed to serve as CR tends to bias the data somewhat. However, there are nearly deadhead counter-flow trains used to postition equipment for rush hour and these are generally quite empty.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- you do understand that the power necessary to move through the air increases with the cube of the speed. This is not important at low speeds where other losses such as rolling friction are important. Howerver, as you crest 200 kph you are starting to be dominated by air resistance.

On this basis going from 200 to 400 increases the power requirements for overcoming air resistance drag by a factor of 8. Even going from 200 kph to 300 kph increases that aspect of power demand by more than a factor of 3. Of course the time to travel decreases fairly inversely with speed -- assuming keep to a minimum starting and stopping so the net effect with respect to energy consumption is more like 2.25 times greater

Anyway -- I'm hightly skeptical that anyone will build a 400 km per hour train in the US unless it is maglev in an evacuated tube -- in which case might as well go for 600 km per hour or even faster -- I'd like a 1 hour Bos to Wash train -- of course I miss the views

Yes, I understand physics. I'm saying the numbers line up such that the extra expenditure still makes sense - at 300 in the NE, and 400 everywhere else. You take a hit to operating effeciency but recoup that and then some on your passengers.

It's like driving a car - people can get much better fuel economy driving 55 versus driving 65+. Does that mean most people do when given the choice? No - they go faster - because the 'cost' is worth the benefit.

 

[Kahta]

Yes, I understand physics. I'm saying the numbers line up such that the extra expenditure still makes sense - at 300 in the NE, and 400 everywhere else. You take a hit to operating effeciency but recoup that and then some on your passengers.

It's like driving a car - people can get much better fuel economy driving 55 versus driving 65+. Does that mean most people do when given the choice? No - they go faster - because the 'cost' is worth the benefit.

The cost of driving 65 or 75 isn't higher by a factor of 8.

 

[omaja]

B2 should terminate at Providence - RI will eventually take over in-state commuter rail operation for Westerly-Woonsocket, and there's no reason not to roll back the Providence line to its original terminus at that point.

Why not extend A4 to Newport?

Other than that, it looks good.

I agree about Providence. Perhaps indicate in a separate color the proposed RIDOT network? (I personally like the addition of a Providence-Fall River line along 195, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, sadly.) That said, though, in any case, no Pawtucket station?

A4 to Newport? Ehn, maybe on a seasoanal basis is my feeling. My very strong understanding, as a local, is that Newport wouldn't want commuter rail service, to Fall River, Boston or Providence.

I'm not keen on differentiating operators as I really see it as a regional and intra-metro service that should be operated seamlessly and interchangeably. Pawtucket should definitely be added.

My feeling, though, is that if you are proposing all that expansion of the subway, you should do a little bit of commuter rail expansion as well. I'm surprised, for example, that you kept the B6 ending at Forge Park. Why not connect to a RIDOT network at Woonsocket? It's not that much farther, and it would connect northern RI with Boston. (I personally like the idea of running such a line down through Woonsocket, and out the extra mile to a Park and Ride at Branch Village and Route 146. But that's just me.)

Considering the entire commuter rail network would be revamped and electrified, I think the current footprint plus extensions to Fall River, New Bedford, Plaistow, Manchester/Concord, and Portsmouth is sufficiently comparable to the subway expansion .

One aesthetic quibble: I love the typeface and size of the RT station names, but I care less for the station names (and actually the station markers) on the RER lines. Both too small and too indistinct for my taste. Perhaps make the RER lines thicker, and thus the station markers larger?

Oh also: it is my very strong opinion that Plimptonville should be closed. According to the 2010 Blue Book, there were only 30 boardings there on an average day. The only other station (among those designed only to take passengers on, unlike JFK/UMass or Malden) I saw that had fewer boardings was Silver Hill with 21 (which should also be closed). Your call, of course, but that's my feeling.

Good points. I will consider other options for the RER station markers, but the station names are uniform across the map ( with the exception of line termini). Plimptonville will be removed and I'll look at the blue book for any other obvious closures.

But even wih those large city cores -- the overwhelming flow is inbound to Boston in the AM and out in the PM. Of course the tendancy of the service to be designed to serve as CR tends to bias the data somewhat. However, there are nearly deadhead counter-flow trains used to postition equipment for rush hour and these are generally quite empty.

I would say that there's more than just a tendency to bias the data - we're talking about a system that, for all intents and purposes, is 95-percent geared toward the AM and PM rushes with little more than token service at off-peak times. The empty 'deadhead' trains are a product of the way the system is organized, not necessarily a symptom of a lack of demand.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm not keen on differentiating operators as I really see it as a regional and intra-metro service that should be operated seamlessly and interchangeably. Pawtucket should definitely be added.

Wickford Junction makes absolutely no sense as a terminus, and makes less than no sense when Kingston is available as a terminal station, with upgrades to full high level platforms and inclusion of a passing track for Acela fully funded and to begin within the year. I'm less informed with regards to Westerly, but I believe that new construction for that station is coming down the tracks (ha) and the trains will reach there eventually. Meanwhile, service Providence-Woonsocket is an eventuality - not a question - at this point.

But it makes no sense for MBTA trains to run Boston-Westerly and Boston-Woonsocket, and it makes no sense to have RIDOT operating a RI rail service under some banner from Westerly-Woonsocket while MBTA is operating a rebranded Westerly/Woonsocket Line, to say nothing about the logistical nightmare such a thing would be. And all this is before the opposition from MA residents, and you can bet there'd be opposition.

A regional and intra-metro service for Boston has no reason to go farther than Providence (or, at the absolute MOST, T.F. Green on a LIMITED basis), and it certainly has no reason to operate the entirety of a neighboring state's network. Especially not when the state in question is ready and willing and WANTS to operate the service on their own terms. Why insist on not letting them do so?

Side question to the crowd: T.F. Green and Wickford both have just one side platform. Is this the new MBTA standard of station construction? Why not an island platform or two sides?

They're built to add those later when needed. T.F. Green's provisioned for Amtrak platforms in the center as well. Once there's a full-time service operating south of Providence instead of the limited schedule today, the plan is to drop in commuter rail platforms on the opposite sides. Extra platforms don't cost very much to tack on when the rest of the station infrastructure is in place.

Okay, that makes sense. Got it.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Side question to the crowd: T.F. Green and Wickford both have just one side platform. Is this the new MBTA standard of station construction? Why not an island platform or two sides?

They're built to add those later when needed. T.F. Green's provisioned for Amtrak platforms in the center as well. Once there's a full-time service operating south of Providence instead of the limited schedule today, the plan is to drop in commuter rail platforms on the opposite sides. Extra platforms don't cost very much to tack on when the rest of the station infrastructure is in place.

 

[whighlander]

Yes, I understand physics. I'm saying the numbers line up such that the extra expenditure still makes sense - at 300 in the NE, and 400 everywhere else. You take a hit to operating effeciency but recoup that and then some on your passengers.

It's like driving a car - people can get much better fuel economy driving 55 versus driving 65+. Does that mean most people do when given the choice? No - they go faster - because the 'cost' is worth the benefit.

Commute -- that's a false analogy

On a highway -- do you prefer to drive 80 and stop at every exit for 2 minutes or to drive 65 and only stop at the end of your trip?

The starting and stopping is the real killer of high average speed for rail -- for example the Acella can top 150 on a segment between Rt-128 and Providence and another segment just past Providence -- yet it still takes 3.5 hours to go from Boston South Station to NY Penn -- a distance of 231 mi or 370 km ==> average speed = 105 km/hr

Get rid of the slow spots in CT along the shore and cut the number of stops and you could run at peak speed of 250 km/hr and average of 180 km/hr using current Acella technology equipment and have a realistic chance of making the trip in 2 hrs -- the long sought dream to be fully competitive with air.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- that's a false analogy

On a highway -- do you prefer to drive 80 and stop at every exit for 2 minutes or to drive 65 and only stop at the end of your trip?

The starting and stopping is the real killer of high average speed for rail -- for example the Acella can top 150 on a segment between Rt-128 and Providence and another segment just past Providence -- yet it still takes 3.5 hours to go from Boston South Station to NY Penn -- a distance of 231 mi or 370 km ==> average speed = 105 km/hr

Get rid of the slow spots in CT along the shore and cut the number of stops and you could run at peak speed of 250 km/hr and average of 180 km/hr using current Acella technology equipment and have a realistic chance of making the trip in 2 hrs -- the long sought dream to be fully competitive with air.

Except the Acela has a minimum of 4 stops (BOS, NYP, PHL, WAS) it MUST make, and 4 more stops it needs to make in order to provide adequate coverage to the corridor (PVD, NHV, NWK, BAL), making your analogy equally false.

Even then, an average of 180 kmph to cover ~635 km of distance works out to... 3 and a half hours. Not bad, but a far cry from the 2 hours you suggest.

Averaging 250 kmph? 2 and a half hours - top speed of 300 kmph, 250 average is achievable no problem. Hell, keep your dwell times down enough and your top speed ranges wide enough, that 250 starts looking like 270-280 - 2 hours, 15~21 minutes...

As I said, it makes economic sense to run those trains at 300. That's the only way you're going to be competitive with air.

 

[whighlander]

Except the Acela has a minimum of 4 stops (BOS, NYP, PHL, WAS) it MUST make, and 4 more stops it needs to make in order to provide adequate coverage to the corridor (PVD, NHV, NWK, BAL), making your analogy equally false.

Even then, an average of 180 kmph to cover ~635 km of distance works out to... 3 and a half hours. Not bad, but a far cry from the 2 hours you suggest.

Averaging 250 kmph? 2 and a half hours - top speed of 300 kmph, 250 average is achievable no problem. Hell, keep your dwell times down enough and your top speed ranges wide enough, that 250 starts looking like 270-280 - 2 hours, 15~21 minutes...

As I said, it makes economic sense to run those trains at 300. That's the only way you're going to be competitive with air.

Commute -- Bingo! -- Acella is not the solution

But first -- I was talking only about the Bos South Station to NY Penn Station route (370 km) -- the rest of the corridor to DC is not really relevant at this point when you are competing with air

The solution is something I dubbed "Core-Trans" when I tried to pitch it to Amtrak about 10 + years ago

My system would go point to point -- non stop at a moderate speed of about 150 km/hr -==> 2.5 hours South Station (actually it would probably have to stop at Back Bay) to Penn Station

The keys to Core-Trans:
1) small, ligh weight self propelled vehicles -- single Red Line car size -- but built like a commuter aircraft
2) no tickets, no conductors -- you board the next vehicle as you arrive
3) GPS and WiFi positive control and monitoring of all vehicles at all times (don't really need a driver)
4) main line bypasses all stations -- stations such as Providence and New Haven are all on short loops
5) frequent departures -- say every 15 to 20 minutes at rush hours and 30 minutes mid day and late evening to NYC
a) Providence about the same intervals
b) New London, New Haven, Stamford about 30 minutes peak and 1 per hour off-peak
6) food and drinks, newspapers from vending machines

The system is based on 21st century packet switched communications technology -- no 19th Century concepts need apply

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- Bingo! -- Acella is not the solution

But first -- I was talking only about the Bos South Station to NY Penn Station route (370 km) -- the rest of the corridor to DC is not really relevant at this point when you are competing with air

The solution is something I dubbed "Core-Trans" when I tried to pitch it to Amtrak about 10 + years ago

My system would go point to point -- non stop at a moderate speed of about 150 km/hr -==> 2.5 hours South Station (actually it would probably have to stop at Back Bay) to Penn Station

The keys to Core-Trans:
1) small, ligh weight self propelled vehicles -- single Red Line car size -- but built like a commuter aircraft
2) no tickets, no conductors -- you board the next vehicle as you arrive
3) GPS and WiFi positive control and monitoring of all vehicles at all times (don't really need a driver)
4) main line bypasses all stations -- stations such as Providence and New Haven are all on short loops
5) frequent departures -- say every 15 to 20 minutes at rush hours and 30 minutes mid day and late evening to NYC
a) Providence about the same intervals
b) New London, New Haven, Stamford about 30 minutes peak and 1 per hour off-peak
6) food and drinks, newspapers from vending machines

The system is based on 21st century packet switched communications technology -- no 19th Century concepts need apply

Why wouldn't the remaining stretch to DC be relevant, again? I imagine a significant number of people are boarding those trains for a BOS - PHL or BOS - WAS commute, and the NYP - PHL/WAS crowd is significant too. I'd need to see some numbers for flights from Logan to Dulles but I imagine that those numbers aren't insignificant either.

As for Back Bay... a rehabbed Fairmount Line meets the existing NEC at Readville and provides a convenient routing around Back Bay with a better straightaway for acceleration from what I can see eyeballing the map.

That's assuming the Southeast Expressway is too shot to hell for median-running (probable) and the Old Colonies bottleneck either doesn't get fixed (doubtful) or does get fixed but there's no room to build a flyover into the Yankee Division Highway median to Route 128 station (where another flyover would route around the station and rejoin the existing NEC just afterwards, through to T.F. Green).

Either way, Back Bay won't be a mandatory stop in the future.

 

[Semass]

In the vein of The MBTA financial woes, would it be possible to spin out Commuter Rail and other MASSDOT held rails into a new statewide authority? Not to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic or anything, but the T has been taking a licking from all sides and it seems like commuter rail and The Ride are at the heart of it in many cases. Get the CR monkey off the MBTA's back and let it concentrate on subway, light rail and bus services in the core service area. Commuter Rail growth over the last 20 years has out paced the ability of the T to manage it. Too many MBTA resources are being devoted to services that serve a proportionately small percentage of users.

A new statewide railway authority would manage commuter services and related contractors. They would get custody of and be responsible for all state-owned non transit tracks. They would get all of the rolling stock. They would have to take on the debt of the expansions such as Greenbush. They would be responsible for future CR projects - Rhode Island, South Coast, New Hampshire. Potential service to Cape Cod and Springfield would live there as part of the statewide nature. Let this division be responsible for paying for it so it is not at the expense of core MBTA service.

There is still a strong case for keeping the sales tax model with MBTA as even without CR they move over 1M people per day. However, the service assessments for CR only towns could go to the new entity. This authority would be able to earn some revenue by developing private freight service on state rails. Use TOD real estate here too, if not subway/light rail related.

Loss of CR revenue to the MBTA should be more than made up by savings from not having responsibility over all of that infrastructure. By offloading this stuff, MBTA core services could probably be brought back to financial health pretty well. The Rail division/authority would need to be more entrepreneurial but would have a good chance for success.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

In the vein of The MBTA financial woes, would it be possible to spin out Commuter Rail and other MASSDOT held rails into a new statewide authority? Not to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic or anything, but the T has been taking a licking from all sides and it seems like commuter rail and The Ride are at the heart of it in many cases. Get the CR monkey off the MBTA's back and let it concentrate on subway, light rail and bus services in the core service area. Commuter Rail growth over the last 20 years has out paced the ability of the T to manage it. Too many MBTA resources are being devoted to services that serve a proportionately small percentage of users.

A new statewide railway authority would manage commuter services and related contractors. They would get custody of and be responsible for all state-owned non transit tracks. They would get all of the rolling stock. They would have to take on the debt of the expansions such as Greenbush. They would be responsible for future CR projects - Rhode Island, South Coast, New Hampshire. Potential service to Cape Cod and Springfield would live there as part of the statewide nature. Let this division be responsible for paying for it so it is not at the expense of core MBTA service.

There is still a strong case for keeping the sales tax model with MBTA as even without CR they move over 1M people per day. However, the service assessments for CR only towns could go to the new entity. This authority would be able to earn some revenue by developing private freight service on state rails. Use TOD real estate here too, if not subway/light rail related.

Loss of CR revenue to the MBTA should be more than made up by savings from not having responsibility over all of that infrastructure. By offloading this stuff, MBTA core services could probably be brought back to financial health pretty well. The Rail division/authority would need to be more entrepreneurial but would have a good chance for success.

The Commuter Rail is operated by MBCR - the MBTA simply subcontracts out. I'm not sure what the contract specifics are, but I'm doubting that this is such a huge cost-saver. I could be wrong, though.

However, savings or no, from a political and philosophy standpoint this should be done, and is worth doing - especially for the legal snarls it will cut away. Divorcing Commuter Rail should indirectly open the door towards improved regional, cross-state and interstate commuter rail services.

Western MA is still a total transit dead zone and the single-track bottlenecks on the Framingham/Worcester Line aren't helping.

 

[omaja]

Divorcing commuter rail from the MBTA's rapid transit operations seems to be incredibly logical. This follows the systems in Tokyo, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, and I am sure basically every other major world city, where some sort of city agency (Tokyo Metro, RATP, Madrid Metro, BVG) operates the rapid transit and some sort of regional or national agency (JR East, SNCF, Renfe, Deutsche Bahn) operates the suburban or commuter system.

There are really no synergies to be had by having them under the same agency (different rolling stock, regulations, usage, scheduling, maintenance, etc.). My only thought is that splitting the two would likely show just how much the commuter rail loses on its own relative to the rapid transit. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, and any expansion plan funding can be diverted to existing system maintenance and upgrades.

 

[Matthew]

The operating expense of the commuter rail was $398 million in 2011

The NTD database actually has it listed under $300 million (for 2010), and I'm not sure why. If NTD is correct (which I am somewhat doubtful) then MBCR is somewhat cheaper per operating hour than most American agencies.

The Tokyo system is even crazier than that. There's something like 8 operators, 2 of them public, the rest private. All of them profitable. Total ridership = 40 million. Per day!

In terms of splitting up turf, the primary issue to be addressed is retaining integrated ticketing and schedule planning. In many other countries, even when separate agencies or companies run trains, they still manage to work together. In America, even when all the service is under one roof, they still fail at cross-ticketing and planning (Charlie!).

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

In terms of splitting up turf, the primary issue to be addressed is retaining integrated ticketing and schedule planning. In many other countries, even when separate agencies or companies run trains, they still manage to work together. In America, even when all the service is under one roof, they still fail at cross-ticketing and planning (Charlie!).

Oh, if only there was some kind of 'administration' or something that existed at a federal level and could step in to force all state agencies to fall in line and cooperate with each other.

...oh, wait, that agency is actively malevolent and too preoccupied with concern trolling Amtrak and rolling stock manufacturers to do its stated job.

Oh, if only we could dismantle the FRA and replace it with an agency that didn't suck...