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

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

CSTH said:
The long history of putting transit underground in order to create more room for cars continues.

And this will be called a 'billion dollar commuter rail tunnel' rather than a 'billion dollar HOV lane'....
Click to expand...

Indeed. Because it is fucking expensive to bury a diesel commuter rail line underground for a half-mile, ventilate it, build longer inclines to get down, and build clearances for any future tall freights under electrification in the 100 years the tunnel is supposed to last. Burying Braintree-under-Ashmont is easy...all-electric, no ventilation, shorter trains that won't change size for much less tunnel height and snugger fit, lightweight trains so roof can easily support upper level, combined cable plant. The RR tunnel is easily going to cost twice as much as the HRT tunnel. And everything that has to get all blowed up for the highway widening between fuckin' Braintree and South Bay will cost 3-5x as much as that.


Honestly...if they JUST buried Braintree-under-Ashmont and compacted Columbia Jct. they'd get 2 tracks of surface commuter rail and enough pavement room to extend the zipper lane up to the Airport HOV's with little more than a rebuild of the ancient Columbia Rd. overpass and a couple street bridges upstream. Instead they've proposed something with THREE MORE LANES OF ASPHALT than the last architectural firm renders for the OC double-track + HOV extension that also attempted a (somewhat shorter) boondoggle burial of the CR tracks.


FWIW...I don't think MassDOT is taking this proposal seriously. This is all the South Coast Task Force and a bunch of crayon-in-brain SC legislators. Pollack's already said during the '17-21 TIP review comment responses earlier this summer that the days of mass add-a-lane'ing are over. This is a $0 PowerPoint for the idle amusement of the New Bedford Standard-Times until it gets thrown in the trash.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Total bullshit vaporware. They claim to received an "unsolicited" proposal for a "public private partnership" by an unnamed party that wants to build pay lanes in the Southeast Expressway. The toll to enter two "managed lanes" would theoretically be used to pay for the transit project. Pardon my "air quotes".

Meanwhile, the Middleboro route totally screws the entire Old Colony lines, necessitates the replacement of the Middleboro lot, and ends any potential for Buzzards Bay expansion.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Semass said:
Total bullshit vaporware. They claim to received an "unsolicited" proposal for a "public private partnership" by an unnamed party that wants to build pay lanes in the Southeast Expressway. The toll to enter two "managed lanes" would theoretically be used to pay for the transit project. Pardon my "air quotes".

Meanwhile, the Middleboro route totally screws the entire Old Colony lines, necessitates the replacement of the Middleboro lot, and ends any potential for Buzzards Bay expansion.
Click to expand...

Which...is exactly what the South Coast Rail FEIR concluded about the M'Boro Alternative when it slapped it with a big phat "Not Recommended" rating and called the Stoughton Route the only possible path.


Right...total bullshit vaporware from an unsolicited proposal a couple desperate South Coast legislators pulled out of their asses when they requested a private meeting with Pollack a few months ago. Pollack is giving them their bread-and-circuses in front of the Board to keep a couple of dim bulbs from trying to ratfuck MassDOT in the Legislature by...I don't know...holding GLX hostage? Holding the toll collection switch hostage? Take your pick.

They got their public airing and pretty PowerPoints, which is all they were promised. And now this will be swept under the rug and business will go on pretending this little interlude never existed. It's how you play politics with children with the attention span of half-a-gnat.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

F-Line to Dudley said:
Ten lanes. Ten...lanes...on the Expressway. Because of a public transit project. That will wreck every frequency on every existing Old Colony branch. Thus requiring the entire South Shore to once again drive the Expressway every morning like they did prior to 1997.

On ten lanes. Count 'em: ten of them.


Bonus: This will probably all cost more than the $3 billion price tag they're trying to "save" money from.
Click to expand...

Only focusing on the 10 lane piece - what's the issue? The Southeast Expressway is already a very poorly designed and laid out highway. That cross section shows 4 full travel lanes in each direction plus a breakdown lane - something that should exist the entire stretch of the SE Expressway as things stand today.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Screw that cancer, congestion, urban sprawl and asthma causing nonsense. No new road capacity into Boston, period.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

mass88 said:
Only focusing on the 10 lane piece - what's the issue? The Southeast Expressway is already a very poorly designed and laid out highway. That cross section shows 4 full travel lanes in each direction plus a breakdown lane - something that should exist the entire stretch of the SE Expressway as things stand today.
Click to expand...

10 lanes is too much in regard to this proposal with the SCR, but I have long supported efforts to bring the Expressway at least up to compliance with standards by means of adding breakdown lanes (not travel lanes). You are correct that breakdown lanes should exist for the entire stretch from Braintree to Boston. That's a core safety & efficiency upgrade which will actually relieve traffic from a broad perspective of time spent because people will have the opportunity to breakdown in the breakdown lane and not literally in the middle of the road like what happens now. Ambulances could also use it to get patients to the hospital faster. It's terrifying watching an ambulance weave its way thru a traffic jam on the Xway because all that time spent is someone's life inside the ambulance ticking away.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

datadyne007 said:
10 lanes is too much in regard to this proposal with the SCR, but I have long supported efforts to bring the Expressway at least up to compliance with standards by means of adding breakdown lanes (not travel lanes). You are correct that breakdown lanes should exist for the entire stretch from Braintree to Boston. That's a core safety & efficiency upgrade which will actually relieve traffic from a broad perspective of time spent because people will have the opportunity to breakdown in the breakdown lane and not literally in the middle of the road like what happens now. Ambulances could also use it to get patients to the hospital faster. It's terrifying watching an ambulance weave its way thru a traffic jam on the Xway because all that time spent is someone's life inside the ambulance ticking away.
Click to expand...

I would agree - at the very least the entire stretch of the SE Expressway should have a full breakdown lane present.

If we were ever to get 2 dedicated HOV lanes the entire stretch of the SE Expressway, it would be pretty great if they could cut and cover a tunnel underneath that would allow for express trains to run from Braintree into South Station. Instead of veering right into Quincy Adams you have tracks go left along that short stretch of Route 3 and then enter the tunnel.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

mass88 said:
I would agree - at the very least the entire stretch of the SE Expressway should have a full breakdown lane present.

If we were ever to get 2 dedicated HOV lanes the entire stretch of the SE Expressway, it would be pretty great if they could cut and cover a tunnel underneath that would allow for express trains to run from Braintree into South Station. Instead of veering right into Quincy Adams you have tracks go left along that short stretch of Route 3 and then enter the tunnel.
Click to expand...

No, that would be a terrible idea for exactly the reasons outlined above. It is hideously expensive to build a ventilated RR tunnel with 20+ feet of vertical clearance. It's twice the concrete of a much more compact subway tunnel. There is no upside in HOV's anywhere close to large enough to float the magnitude of that cost.

Bury Red under Red, double-track the CR on the surface, and there is one totally freed track berth to widen the road for full interstate-regulation shoulders or go without shoulders and extend the Zipper lane. While ratcheting up commuter rail frequencies to all 3 lines to maybe...just maybe...take a few cars off the Expressway. There is no killshot that lets you have eleventeen tracks and twelvety-eight lanes on the same footprint through Savin Hill.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I say put the h o v lanes and maybe even a dedicated exit lane or two up the middle of a rebuilt flood proof morrissey Blvd on the other side of Savin hill ... And keep the dirt in the ground where it belongs
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Oh yeah and serve Fall River from providence for crying out loud
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

CSTH said:
I say put the h o v lanes and maybe even a dedicated exit lane or two up the middle of a rebuilt flood proof morrissey Blvd on the other side of Savin hill ... And keep the dirt in the ground where it belongs
Click to expand...

You do need to move some dirt in the form of Red-under-Red in order to double-track commuter rail. Which still gives you a net-gain of either real shoulders or a chance to extend the Zippah north while in the process taking South Shore commuters off the Expressway. But each concept for doing just that has instead pulled out the 20 ft. tall ventilated RR tunnel project-killer to binge-eat on twice as much asphalt on the T's dime.


Note also what this "unsolicited proposal" doesn't say.

  • Shovel's about to go into ground on Wollaston station ADA/partial-rebuild, but all the renders for that project leave just the single CR track stet. Is anyone pitching this concept saying "Hold the phone!" and suggesting a project change that shifts the Red tracks + platform 12 ft. on a slight overhang of the parking side to carve out room? Of course not...that would be a net-gain of a whole 1-1/4 miles of double-track. And, hell, tacking on that 1-1/4 miles to the work around Savin Hill and Columbia Jct. may be the literal difference in having some kind of non-destructive South Coast schedule vs. none whatsoever. But fuck that because LANE CAPACITY!

  • Is anyone suggesting that while Quincy Ctr. contemplates its navel on the future of that condemned garage that they might want to rip the roof off that station and excavate a trench to turn the CR platform into an island before sewing back up and putting their air rights manifest destiny on top? Of course not...that would only add another contiguous half-mile of DT from Wollaston if they solve the minor Bridge St. pinch point, and would isolate the only totally unsolvable single-track pinch to the 1.5 miles through Quincy Adams. But fuck that because LANE CAPACITY!
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

F-Line to Dudley said:
No, that would be a terrible idea for exactly the reasons outlined above. It is hideously expensive to build a ventilated RR tunnel with 20+ feet of vertical clearance. It's twice the concrete of a much more compact subway tunnel. There is no upside in HOV's anywhere close to large enough to float the magnitude of that cost.

Bury Red under Red, double-track the CR on the surface, and there is one totally freed track berth to widen the road for full interstate-regulation shoulders or go without shoulders and extend the Zipper lane. While ratcheting up commuter rail frequencies to all 3 lines to maybe...just maybe...take a few cars off the Expressway. There is no killshot that lets you have eleventeen tracks and twelvety-eight lanes on the same footprint through Savin Hill.
Click to expand...

Would it be cheaper and more feasible reconfigure the red line tracks north of JFK-UMass so that both branches serve the same platform and both branches serve Savin Hill? This way you still free up surface space for an additional CR track and shoulder or managed lane without the tunnel. Would also require track reconfiguration downstream as well to create a new branch split.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

HAving both Ashmont and braintree seems like a good plan, even if you lose some time on the red line. I don't know if you need to just build a new flyover downstream though.

Seems like it could help the additional CR track. But F-Lines point about if you still have a 1 track bottle neck in multiple spots in Quincy you are not really solving a CR or subway transit problem but a way to create more lanes.

Being very aware of the induced demand aspect of adding a lane, i think my ideal fix as someone that uses both transit and auto along this route, would be, add a breakdown lane to 93 and keep the 4 travel lanes in both directions. Add a permanent HOV lane that can be bi-directional to go with prevailing traffic but doesnt create a bottleneck in the reverse direction. Create an HOV exit at the current zipper end point but a way to continue in HOV to the logan/SS HOV.

Also, charge a congestion toll right on 93, make is 25% cheaper in the HOV to encourage carpool. Use 100% of the funds to make public transit more affordable: lower CR parking lot fees to $1. Expand Braintree park and ride. Max limit 25% of SEXway toll revenue to go into SEXway maintence. The rest goes to transit investments and state of good repair.

I drive a fair bit, i would much rather pay with money than time on those days i need to get into the city and ensure it won't take 120 min, but the rest it should be easy to take transit.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Savin Hill is small potatoes - 2440 boardings a day, second only to Shawmut - whereas every other stop gets 4600+ per day. No way you're making 30,000+ Quincy riders wait at Savin Hill. If you do manage to restore higher speeds on the Braintree Branch enough for a +1, you save it for a Port Norfolk stop combined with a defucked Morrisey Boulevard.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Fair enough but if it saves tens to hundreds of millions and allows much greater CR rail schedules (w. stops at QC), it's not necessarily an unrealistic tradeoff.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

^yeah this.

The way to complete this sentence: "The purpose of the tunnel is to...' Is not to compare it to the status quo, but to compare it to the next-best alternative.

Specifically: it seems like it's not accurate to say 'the purpose of the tunnel is to enable double track CR and additional lanes on 93'. It's more accurate to say: the purpose of the tunnel is to allow Braintree trains to bypass Savin hill' (because it seems that if you combine the red line rows of can have almost everything else you want)

And that's a pretty weak proposition for the probable cost.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

It would degrade Red headways end-to-end to mash the branches together. Both for what EGE said and because Clayton St. split only has enough room for a very abrupt and speed-restricted junction. Likely not even with grade separation...just another Copley Jct. toilet clog. That's an utterly unacceptable trade-off for the most critical load-bearing transit line in the state. It's not saving money if it's doing overt harm to transit. Exactly the same as this SCR M'boro alternative is total bullshit for wrecking 3 branches worth of South Shore transit for I/me/mine.

That's the value proposition. Increase transit capacity at a do-no-harm baseline to the MOST critical transit component of all.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Got, it's the junction, not the stop.

Is there not room for a proper flying junction north of Freeport st?
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

CSTH said:
Got, it's the junction, not the stop.

Is there not room for a proper flying junction north of Freeport st?
Click to expand...

No. 800 ft. isn't enough, and there's abutting buildings once 93 pulls away. Columbia Jct. can be a LOT more compact and less overly complex than it currently is without sacrificing any utility, but bookending JFK is still the only place with the room to do what it has to do.




I'll pull this crude MS Paint job out again from an old thread. This depicts the Red-under-Red surface/tunnel scenario with a compacted Columbia Jct. Crossovers not to scale.

We won't go through construction staging other than to say Red will shift around on 2 tracks with temp 'erector-set' at-grade junction at Clayton St., Savin Hill station will be out of commission for some length of time, and there'll be no other disruptions to Ashmont/Braintree or CR except for weekend bustitutions here and there.

file.php


Very simple. . .


For Red:

  • The Cabot Yard leads turn into the Ashmont tracks, and the subway tracks coming out of Andrew turn into the Braintree tracks. High-speed crossovers accomplish all of the branch splits/merges on 4 tracks instead of the eleventy-thousand Columbia switches on 7 tracks with the same number of potential merge/split meets (i.e. negligible).
  • JFK station is structurally unmodified, but has the IB/OB track assignments rearranged. Instead of the bugfuck IB-Ashmont--OB-Ashmont / IB-Braintree--OB-Braintree arrangement that has everybody stampeding from the lookout point on the overpass to catch the right platform, it's resequenced as a nice neat IB--IB / OB-Braintree--OB-Ashmont setup.

  • Asmont track berth between Hartland St. and the Hoyt St. school bus yard is dug into a Wellington tunnel-style cut with bare roof. More like covered-over air rights than an actual subway tunnel, with a deck that only has to support 2 RL tracks. Braintree, since it hugs the middle 2 tracks, slips into the tunnel. Ashmont, since it hugs the outer two tracks, spreads-eagle around the portal and slots itself on top of the roof.

  • (not pictured) Right before the Savin Hill platforms the tunnel shifts a few feet and straddles the Ashmont IB and commuter rail OB tracks so it avoids any structural impacts to Savin Hill's foundation.

  • (not pictured) After 93 pulls away the tunnel makes another slight shift out from under the CR tracks back to the old Braintree footprint, and portals-up around the south tip of the school bus yard with adequate running room to the Freeport St. overpass.


For commuter rail:


  • Compacting Columbia Jct. opens up double-track space between the first set of abutting buildings on Old Colony Ave. and the Southampton St. overpass. Southampton overpass would have to be widened by +1 tracks to solve the last 300 ft. pinch, but assume that gets done.

  • Morrissey Blvd. reconfig would eliminate that warcrime of a parkway interchange in favor of simplified rotary, so Old Colony Ave. abutting the tracks is expendable. JFK CR platform is build to double-track island width, so claiming the inner busway and reconfiguring the other busway frees up the space for snaking double-track under the Columbia Ave. overpass and JFK station ped overpasses.

  • Since Red flyovers are demolished for the more compact setup, CR tracks next to the Boston Globe get compacted too and current S-curve under the flyover gets eliminated.

  • Through Savin Hill it occupies current CR track + current Braintree OB track. -1 track berth and buffer space given over to I-93.

  • After Braintree pops back up, Freeport St. rail overpasses widened to 6 tracks and Park St. rail overpass to 4 tracks (plenty of room at each).

  • Everything Victory Rd.-south stays stet. Total DT from Tower 1 interlocking at SS to Wollaston is now 5-3/4 contiguous miles vs. previously a 1 mile DT segment Tower 1-Southampton, 2-1/2 miles single-track Southampton-Victory Rd., and 2-1/4 miles DT Victory Rd.-Wollaston...a 44% increase.


For I-93:

  • Current 5-track Savin Hill ROW is 80 ft. wide with 2 sets of fences separating the CR track from the Red branches. At the Savin Hill platforms it widens to 100 ft., but does so by spreading away from 93 so space up-for-grabs stays constant. At the derelict freight underpass south of the SH platforms it's 115 ft.
    • Current 4-track ROW south of Victory Rd. is 60 ft. wide with 1 fence separating CR from Red.
    • On the Neponset River bridges, 2 tracks of Red is a 25 ft. wide ROW and 2 tracks of CR is a 30 ft. wide ROW. Assume this is a safe minimum for each mode with side safety room against a flat wall. 55-56 ft. Assume that there will be NO electrical boxes on the surface ROW's because all utilities can be tucked into the Braintree tunnel below and accessed from above by a roof conduit between the tracks.
    • Further compacting is possible if the retaining wall along Sydney St. had those subway-style safety depressions cut into the wall at regular intervals for people to jump out of the way of an oncoming train. Couple feet at most.
    • Parts of the Sydney St. retaining wall are new wall built behind a short rump of original 19th century wall. Shave back the old wall and you might gain +1-2 more feet.
    • Additional space available south of SH platforms by eating into the wide embankment abuttting the school bus yard.
    • Savin Hill Ave. overpass would have to be re-done to reclaim the freed track berth because a bridge abutment currently blocks access to widen the road. Assume that the replacement bridge is done such that it entirely eliminates the current abutment between 93S and tracks, with new bridge having abutments only on the 93 median and between CR and Red tracks. This frees up 5 more ft.

  • Given all above TOTAL gained space for I-93 is:
    • 24 ft. bare minimum. At the SH platforms, with Hubbardston Rd. immediately across is the pinch point.
    • 25-30 ft. from Savin Hill Ave. overpass north to Globe parking lot.
    • Essentially unlimited south of SH platforms with embankment/retaining wall work, including on the McConnell Park side of 93N.
    • Essentially unlimited from the Globe parking lot all points north to Dot Ave. (additional work north of Dot Ave. is out-of-scope for this project).

  • Interstate standards:
    • Minimum outer shoulder width of 10 ft. (10 x 2 = 20 ft.)
    • Recommended outer shoulder width of 12 ft. for routes with >250 trucks per hour (12 x 2 = 24 ft.). Yes, the Expressway most definitely has those truck volumes.
    • Minimum inner shoulder width of 4 ft. (4 x 2 = 8 ft.)
    • Recommended inner shoulder width of 10 ft. for roads with 3 or more lanes in each direction (10 x 2 = 20 ft.)
    • TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH: 28 ft. minimum, 40 ft. maximum.
    • Travel lane width: 12 ft. minimum
    • Jersey barrier width: 3 ft. (permanent), 2 ft. (movable). Zipper lane median is 3 + 2 + 2 = 7 ft.
    • TOTAL WIDTH FOR 8-LANE EXPRESSWAY (jersey barrier, no Zipper): 127 ft. minimum, 143 ft. maximum. (Note: Sample measurement of Route 128 width at midpoint between Ponkapoag Trail and Route 138 exits is exactly 143 ft.)

  • Lane configurations available for 93 with the new space:
    • At Savin Hill station / Hubbardston Rd.: 2 minimum left shoulders + 1 minimum right shoulder + 1 substandard right shoulder + no Zipper. OR...2 minimum left shoulders + Zipper barrier + 1 substandard right shoulder + no right shoulder.
    • Savin Hill Ave. to Boston Globe: 2 minimum left shoulders + 2 minimum right shoulders + no Zipper. OR...2 minimum left shoulders + Zipper barrier + 1 minimum right shoulder + no right shoulder.
    • All elsewhere: 2 minimum left + right shoulders AND Zipper, or 2 recommended left + right shoulders and no Zipper. (I'm guessing because of other constraints all up and down the Expressway that we're probably gonna have to settle for the 4 ft. left and 10 ft. minimum shoulders and not be able to go full-on maximum everywhere like Route 128.)


Not frickin' bad. They can keep the Zippah, give it real left shoulders instead of that terrifying 6-inch shave to the jersey barrier, and give at least one direction a real breakdown lane at the narrowest pinch with dual breakdowns elsewhere.




If I were transpo czar I'd just ditch the Zippah and go full-on Route 128 maximum shoulders since HOV's are incredibly overrated when there's parallel transit...and instead of widening up to Southampton for carpools I'd extend the Frontage roads south to Columbia Rd. to eliminate that one slowdown where all the Mass Ave. traffic suddenly dumps and get more trucks off Dorchester neighborhood streets.


But, you know...Not Invented Here and all that. So onward and northward with the Zippah. It can be done cleanly without needing to propose spending a billion dollars extra for 10 lanes and that wretchedly complex extra commuter rail tunnel.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Well, the first meeting happened... In b4 F-Line's freak out.

Highlighting is my emphasis.

Public urges MassDOT to move quickly on Middleboro route, South Coast Rail

By Mike Lawrence

Posted Sep. 7, 2016 at 9:37 PM
Updated Sep 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM

AR-160909523.jpg&MaxW=650

Former Mayor Scott Lang said at a Wednesday public forum on South Coast Rail that: "We can begin riding rail within two to three years but we need a commitment" from state officials, to a route through Middleboro. Several SouthCoast residents urged state transportation officials Wednesday to accelerate commuter rail plans, after decades of delays. MIKE LAWRENCE / THE STANDARD-TIMES / SCMG

NEW BEDFORD — If MassDOT and MBTA representatives were hoping for a nuanced discussion of South Coast Rail options at a public forum Wednesday night, that’s not exactly what they got.

What they got was urgency.

“Build the Middleboro route, build it now, build it fast,” said Dartmouth resident George Kontanis, a SouthCoast native who left for college before returning to the area permanently in 1995.

“We need to get this done, and we need to get it done quickly,” added Paul Chase, CEO of the Realtors Association of Southeastern Massachusetts.
Kontanis and Chase were two of about 15 members of the public who spoke at the South Coast Rail forum, held at Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational-Technical High School. Several elected officials also spoke. While a few people asked for caution or more information from state transportation officials, who are weighing Stoughton and Middleboro routes for commuter rail to Boston, the overall message at Wednesday’s forum — the first of six in the region this month — was that SouthCoast residents and legislators are tired of waiting.

“Now is the time to support limited service through a Middleboro extension,” said Lynn Oliveira of the Fall River Office of Economic Development, who read a letter on behalf of that office and Fall River Mayor Jasiel Correia, in “strong support” of a rail connection through Middleboro.

The forum included at least one significant piece of new information.
Rick Carey, New England director of transit and rail for design and engineering firm VHB, said the so-called “Southern Triangle” — a term for future rail connections between Fall River, New Bedford and Taunton, which will be needed regardless of the South Coast Rail route after Taunton — is at the 30-percent design phase. The long-planned route through Stoughton has been at 15-percent design for months, according to previous MassDOT information.

Former New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang, a long advocate of a Middleboro route who said he was speaking at Wednesday’s forum “as a citizen,” called the 30-percent figure “a great revelation” that could clear the way for environmental permitting in the immediate region, and accelerate planning for an interim route through Middleboro.

Current Mayor Jon Mitchell, though, urged caution about “diving headlong” into a Middleboro route, which has unknowns including costs; potential, related highway projects; and questions about Middleboro rail stations.
“To a great degree, weighing in on, ‘yes or no Middleboro’ is premature at this time,” Mitchell said. “There are a whole lot of questions about this.”
MassDOT introduced the Middleboro option — and projected that costs for the Stoughton route had climbed from $2.2 billion to about $3.4 billion — in a June 27 presentation to the MBTA control board.

MassDOT Secretary Stephanie Pollack said at an August meeting of the control board that gathering public input this month, on Middleboro and Stoughton routes, would be part of continued data-collecting efforts. Upcoming SouthCoast Rail meetings will be held Sept. 12 in Taunton, Sept. 14 in Fall River, Sept. 15 in Easton, Sept. 19 in Canton, and Sept. 22 in Middleboro.

For those unable to attend, presentations will be available online, on MassDOT’s South Coast Rail page: www.massdot.state.ma.us/southcoastrail.
Public comments and questions can be submitted by email, to SouthCoastRail@dot.state.ma, by Sept. 30.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news...-quickly-on-middleboro-route-south-coast-rail
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top