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

[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]

 

[Tallguy]

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
I said that in my earlier post. Inland Route. New Haven to Boston. If anything, a 2-3 car DMU hybrid would probably fit the bill
Note that from an emission standpoint diesels can also be run on biofuels

I'm sorry

 

[Tallguy]

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

You understand that we need to stop filling the sky with diesel emissions? Including freight?

 

[bigeman312]

You understand that we need to stop filling the sky with diesel emissions? Including freight?

The primary move we’re going to see in the next generation is one away from fossil fuels. I think @Arlington does understand that “pollution is bad … mmkay,” but his point about using biofuels rather than petroleum addresses your concern (“How long do you think we will be able to run those new diesels?”

It would be great if all modes of transportation ran on something even cleaner than biofuel diesel, but we aren't close as a society to that point. Let’s work on phasing out fossil fuels first.

 

[Tallguy]

Didnt mean to be snarky, my post was chopped.
Diesel is toast in 20 years

 

[Rover]

I've never understood why this thread always goes off into weird ass tangents that have nothing to do with the actual project! In no particular order:

1) Wouldn't it be better to run rail to Providence instead? Sure, aside from the fact that the railroad bridge over the Taunton River has been gone for 50 years and part of the line in Fall River is now a rail trail. There's also the problem of the RI economy being not much better than the south coast one....

2) This won't save FR/NB like people down there are expecting!!! Aside from critics of the project, who is actually saying it's going to save anything? Instead it's a win-win. The Boston area needs workers and the South coast needs access to higher paying professional jobs. But at the end of the day, residents of this area need to shit or get off the pot. As in ride the thing or risk losing it. Since it's a good half hour or more of a quicker commute than driving during rush hour, it has some appeal.

3) We should be spending money on east-west rail, NS rail link, etc instead. These projects aren't mutually exclusive, and those others have their own logistical issues completely divorced from SCR. It's a nonsensical argument against the project.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I've never understood why this thread always goes off into weird ass tangents that have nothing to do with the actual project! In no particular order:

1) Wouldn't it be better to run rail to Providence instead? Sure, aside from the fact that the railroad bridge over the Taunton River has been gone for 50 years and part of the line in Fall River is now a rail trail. There's also the problem of the RI economy being not much better than the south coast one....

2) This won't save FR/NB like people down there are expecting!!! Aside from critics of the project, who is actually saying it's going to save anything? Instead it's a win-win. The Boston area needs workers and the South coast needs access to higher paying professional jobs. But at the end of the day, residents of this area need to shit or get off the pot. As in ride the thing or risk losing it. Since it's a good half hour or more of a quicker commute than driving during rush hour, it has some appeal.

3) We should be spending money on east-west rail, NS rail link, etc instead. These projects aren't mutually exclusive, and those others have their own logistical issues completely divorced from SCR. It's a nonsensical argument against the project.

As for #1, that's barely a tangent at all. That directly addresses the question of what the best transit option for the South Coast is, and the very real concern that a slow, sparse-schedule Commuter Rail, particularly a version built in a way (Phase I) that potentially undercuts a proper build (and has other problems, such as for Buzzards/Cape) both ill-serves the South Coast and harms any future efforts at better, more-valuable transit. It's not about the nuts-and-bolts of the SCR build itself, but directly related to it as a project and a service area, and by no means out-of-scope for a transit forum.

As for #2, like the previous one, it's not a discussion about the construction as such so much as the philosophy of the project, and the wisdom of doing something in a suboptimal fashion when funding for transit projects is limited. That it's a net-positive for the South Coast does not necessarily mean that it was the best use of state funds, or that it was implemented properly. Furthermore the fact that it's born limited and has a spillover impact on other potential expansion (Buzzards Bay, because of limits on the Old Colony main) means that it can't be considered in a vacuum. And I'm not knowledgeable enough, but I suspect it's not just critics hyping the project, it's presumably also the politicians pushing for its construction.

As for #3, the projects aren't mutually exclusive from a technical standpoint, but money is limited. It is reasonable to debate and argue the relative merits of various projects. An argument that SCR is an inefficient use of funds (I'm not saying that it is, just using an example) compared to other projects is the opposite of nonsensical, because it's an argument that the state should use its funds in the most efficient-beneficial way (one counterargument is that they should use them in a more equitable way).

 

[The EGE]

There never was a Providence-Fall River-New Bedford rail route that hit all three cities. The Watuppa Branch between Fall River and New Bedford ended at Watuppa Mills, 120 feet higher in elevation than the Fall River Secondary along the river. A high-level bridge and tunnel under Fall River was proposed around 1910, primarily for the benefit of Cape Cod service.

The Watuppa Branch is largely intact (partially trail, partially active), but the Providence-Fall River route would be near-impossible to return to rail. You'd need to build a new tunnel under downtown Providence to replace the former viaduct, displace a very popular bike path with lots of grade crossings, reclaim a fragmented right-of-way with a lot of reuse, and build a new bridge into Fall River.

Any future transit is going to use I-195 at least between Providence and Fall River - whether that's express bus with some upgraded stops, light rail, or commuter rail.

 

[stick n move]

Where do you get these maps?

 

[Charlie_mta]

There never was a Providence-Fall River-New Bedford rail route that hit all three cities. The Watuppa Branch between Fall River and New Bedford ended at Watuppa Mills, 120 feet higher in elevation than the Fall River Secondary along the river. A high-level bridge and tunnel under Fall River was proposed around 1910, primarily for the benefit of Cape Cod service.

The Watuppa Branch is largely intact (partially trail, partially active), but the Providence-Fall River route would be near-impossible to return to rail. You'd need to build a new tunnel under downtown Providence to replace the former viaduct, displace a very popular bike path with lots of grade crossings, reclaim a fragmented right-of-way with a lot of reuse, and build a new bridge into Fall River.

Any future transit is going to use I-195 at least between Providence and Fall River - whether that's express bus with some upgraded stops, light rail, or commuter rail.

View attachment 18983

I like the routes but I would have the New Bedford-Fall River route swing by UMass Dartmouth (about a third of the way from New Bedford toward Fall River and south of Route 6). That college is a central destination for a lot of younger people in the area. I went there so I know.

 

[themissinglink]

I like the routes but I would have the New Bedford-Fall River route swing by UMass Dartmouth (about a third of the way from New Bedford toward Fall River and south of Route 6). That college is a central destination for a lot of younger people in the area. I went there so I know.

As someone who also went to UMass Dartmouth (albeit only for a semester) I certainly agree that UMass is a central destination in the area and should absolutely be served by any hypothetical New Bedford-Fall River rail service. However, it would be incredibly challenging to put a station on campus or even next to it due to the adjacent developments surrounding the campus on almost all sides. Any station geared towards UMass Dartmouth students or faculty would probably be best sited at the Faunce Corner Road grade crossing, with a shuttle bus between the station and the campus.

To get back to the discussion about SCR, here's the proposed track map for Phase II, with egregious amounts of single track:

 

[Brattle Loop]

I like the routes but I would have the New Bedford-Fall River route swing by UMass Dartmouth (about a third of the way from New Bedford toward Fall River and south of Route 6). That college is a central destination for a lot of younger people in the area. I went there so I know.

As someone who also went to UMass Dartmouth (albeit only for a semester) I certainly agree that UMass is a central destination in the area and should absolutely be served by any hypothetical New Bedford-Fall River rail service. However, it would be incredibly challenging to put a station on campus or even next to it due to the adjacent developments surrounding the campus on almost all sides. Any station geared towards UMass Dartmouth students or faculty would probably be best sited at the Faunce Corner Road grade crossing, with a shuttle bus between the station and the campus.

Practically impossible. The ROW by UMass Dartmouth is impossible to serve along with New Bedford without a reverse move, and cannot be used to serve Fall River. (Even if the trail was restored to rail, there's nowhere to put a station, and you'd still be stuck with a reverse move, which we know from Kingston/Plymouth practice is not acceptable in terms of quality CR service.)