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

[underground]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

^And not to mention, what does it even matter? The question is if enough people ride the thing to make it viable. Rider's income bracket is negligible outside of an opportunity for certain posters to let us know how much they disdain the unwashed masses for the thousandth time.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

^And not to mention, what does it even matter? The question is if enough people ride the thing to make it viable. Rider's income bracket is negligible outside of an opportunity for certain posters to let us know how much they disdain the unwashed masses for the thousandth time.

I don't see anybody expressing disdain for the unwashed masses here.

When disdain does get expressed in these parts, it is pretty much directed at anyone who gets a transit asset and doesn't use it (e.g. the swells in Greenbush) and the NIMBYs who push costs out of all hopes of ridership ever being worth it (e.g. the pearl-clutchers of Hingham). Greenbush is a double failure (that we don't want see repeated) of building a rail line to a place just because there was some old railbed there, and finding we'd spent too much and it is patronized too little.

Meanwhile, when we do mention lower income groups, it isn't about money, class, or any prejudice except one: if they ride transit (Lynn, Dorchester) we'd love to find a way to spend more $ on them, and if they don't ride transit, we can't imagine why we would--or we're going to ask that they show their support by riding actual transit or their local government stumping up cash (which goes as much for Nashua as it does for FR/NB)..

 

[cozzyd]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Even if it's not quite an improvement over the travel times (which it is for the most part), it's still a better alternative.

One seat ride (or two if they connect to another line at South Station) and no driving at all is very attractive to most people.

How is that an improvement over the bus?

Why deal with the variables like traffic, delays with connections, wait times for connections, etc. when you can catch the train a few miles from home and take it all the way in?

s/train/bus. (except for traffic, but that can likely be fixed for a lot cheaper than SCR).

The busiest part of the drive has an HOV lane. Adding one "where possible" or allowing buses on the shoulder where feasible would do very little to improve the commute from the South Coast. I also can't imagine any stretch of 24 where officials say it's "feasible" for a bus to drive on the shoulder.

Fair enough, I don't know much about the conditions of the highways.

I don't see how running a bus to Quincy Adams would be a great option. Assuming the bus continues on to South Station, does it really make sense for the bus to exit the highway, stop and unload passengers so they can get on a train that they can pick up anyway at the bus's final destination. Then it has to navigate lights and traffic to get back on 93 North. It's 10 minutes extra, at the very least, for the status quo for the bus passengers, and the passengers getting off the bus are then have to wait for the Red Line. It's a delay for everyone.

Then there's the issue of cost. If it costs the same to get off at Quincy Adams as it would to go to South Station, then it doesn't make much sense for a passenger to get off and pay extra for the Red Line at Quincy Adams. If it costs less for a passenger to get off at QA than to continue into town, then does it make sense for the bus to continue the trip into South Station? The bus would be throwing money away. If they're already going to SS, why add time to the trip by stopping at QA and losing the additional fare from the passengers exiting there?

I think buses should either go to QA or SS, but not both. QA would better serve some commuters whose final destination is not SS and in some cases might even be faster to SS if traffic is especially bad on 93.

I'm with you on improving the bus terminal connection at SS, but I don't know how to do it.

Build a moving walkway over the tracks. Expensive, but would drastically improve access.

 

[underground]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

@Arlington

You must be blocking Kmp and Whiggy. Probably a smart move.

 

[underground]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Again, what's the point? It's a bad idea because only low income people will ride it? SCR is a bad idea because of low ridership projections. End of story.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

It will not be 75 minutes. That requires electrification. Do you see the MBTA operating any other electric trains? Do you really expect the MBTA to purchase and operate a special fleet of electric trains, with associated maintenance facilities and staff, just for SCR?

The run times will be 85 minutes at a minimum as projected for the diesel alternative, and probably worse in practice.

It's worse than that. Here's what the Army Corps DEIR says:

In order to support headways on both branches at rush hour, these expresses have to be run to keep the trains out of the way and/or pass each other on the passing sidings.

-- Fall River peak: express from North Easton to Freetown, skipping Easton Village, Raynham, Downtown Taunton, Taunton Depot.

-- New Bedford peak: express direct to North Easton, skipping Canton Jct., Canton Ctr., Stoughton.

-- All stops made by each branch off-peak.

-- The reason for all of this is the single-track capacity. They cannot do linear bi-directional running with the crippled native track capacity. And nearly all passing sidings are at the station platforms themselves. Therefore, the only trick they can pull to shiv om a peak hour schedule is passing on-platform and skipping whole strings of stations entirely. North Easton is the only mainline station being built as single track/single platform, so that's why it's the only one getting doubled-up service.

-- Due to above, all mainline stops are divided between the branches at branch-only headway. This kills 100% of the Taunton<-->FR interzone commute potential, which undoubtedly has some demand. Overall harm to the reverse-commute potential. And the schedule can never expand beyond this until the full 2-track is added, so it is capped from Day 1 everywhere except Canton and Stoughton where full double-track would still support supplemental short-turns.

-- NO service will stop at Route 128 station. It's a total Back Bay-Canton express. While Ruggles and Hyde Park are arguably welcome drops, this kills off all 128-belt commute potential from South Coast and access to any business shuttles that set up shop in Westwood.


Travel times:

Fall River (electrified): 1:15 peak, 1:18 off-peak
New Bedford (electrified): 1:17 peak, 1:16 off-peak

Note how similar the peaks and off-peaks are. Skipping all those stops isn't a speed-up maneuver; it's a congestion maneuver. Peak service will require long dwells for schedule adjustment on the branch that is making the 3 stops north of NE or 4 stops south of SE in order to facilitate meets and passes. A double-track line making all stops would have near-identical travel times with much more ridership because it could trade those long schedule adjustments for more stops.

The Army Corps did not chart out diesel schedules because it of course is betting the farm on electrification. All they said is +20 second penalty per station. Past a certain level of starting acceleration it's pretty much identical to electric push-pull. But that +20 seconds has to factor further degradation at peak for all those on-platform schedule adjustments to oncoming trains. So you may be talking a much larger penalty and several additional minutes to the schedule when meets and passes are factored.

Averages (both branches)
Electric: 77 mins.
Diesel: 82 mins.*

*See above paragraph, and why I think it'll be >5 minute penalty when it knocks all the schedule adjustments out-of-sync. That has nothing to do with power source or electric's awesomeness vs. diesel's suckitude. On a double track line it would be +20 secs. per stop and that's it (for your $1B in savings). I think mandating electrification has all the world to do with the Army Corps trying to sweep under the rug just how defective the single-track ops are going to be than it does vehicle type. And if their margins are THAT small on the assumptions, then if actual conditions turn out any less favorable it could be >82 mins. on electric too. And greater than 90 minutes if the line's daily on-time performance isn't flawless enough for these expresses vs. expresses to hit their respective on-platform passing dwells with perfect timing. That's how much these train meets and schedule adjustments on the single track can trip over each other.

Between this report and the final engineering is where the schedule has the most chance of degrading further, as these meets get refined. The worst is probably yet to come.


Bus connections per station (local RTA's only, not the FR/NB commuter buses):

Canton Ctr. (MBTA): 1 route (716, Mattapan-Cobbs Corner), 60 min. headway peak- and weekends-only.
Stoughton (BAT): 1 route (downtown Brockton-Cobbs Corner), 60 min. headway
North Easton (BAT): none
Easton Village (BAT): 1 route (downtown Brockton), 40 min. headway
Raynham (GATRA): none
Downtown Taunton (GATRA): 1 route (downtown Taunton to Route 44 Raynham), 30 min. headway
Taunton Depot (GATRA): 1 route (East Taunton, Silver City Galleria, Route 44 Raynham), 60 min. headway
Freetown (SRTA): 1 route* (Freetown/FR industrial parks to City Hall via N. Main St.), 30 min. headway
Fall River Depot (SRTA): 1 route* (Freetown/FR industrial parks to City Hall via N. Main St.), 30 min. headway
King's Highway (SRTA): 1 route (Mt. Pleasant St. to Downtown), 45 min. headway
Whale's Tooth (SRTA): 2 routes (Lund's Corner to Downtown; Ft. Rodman to Downtown, 20 min. headway

*same bus route at both CR stops


NO changes proposed to bus frequencies. Some of these would get minor extensions to loop at the stations. Fall River is only served by 1 route because the station location is too far from the downtown terminal. Whale's Tooth is about 1/3 to 1/2 mile from the SRTA terminal, so walking distance to all 11 of SRTA's regular NB routes plus some of the express shuttles.

NB looks good on car-free connections. FR looks very bad. Easton Village--the highest frequency stop--has zero. The BAT routes all pool towards their terminal at Brockton station on the higher-frequency Middleboro Line so that's only on the outskirts of the routes where Easton Village is going to be more convenient. Taunton...OK, but suffers from branch-only peak frequencies. And that TOD paradise in Raynham has no connecting transit whatsoever.

Problems? Yeah, you bet. Outside of New Bedford which has a nicely laid-out system the car-free connections are a total afterthought and this has to sustain itself on park-and-riders paying high Zone fare and high parking rates. The Army Corps based its parking capacity metrics on Providence Line utilization, which is why Stoughton station is getting its lots nearly doubled and the others (except Easton V., which will have none) all have extreme over-capacity far outstripping the projected ridership. See any basic flaws there?



Ridership projections (total, all new stations and branches, excluding Canton/Stoughton ridership because it will likely get supplemented with short-turns):

Electric: 4570 daily, 1100 pre-existing riders diverted from express bus, +3470 increase in all-new transit riders
Diesel: 4430 daily, 1250 pre-existing riders diverted from express bus, +3180 increase in all-new transit riders

2035 projected daily station boardings (electric) + adjustments from prior publicly released models. The original metrics assumed construction proceeding as planned of Urban Ring Phase II, Silver Line Phase III, and Red-Blue and 2030 projections; the re-calculation drops all canceled rapid transit projects from the models and extends out projections 5 years.

North Easton: 460 daily, -290 reduction (~38% reduction)
Easton Village: 150 daily, -170 reduction (~54% reduction
Raynham: 430 daily, -120 reduction (~21% reduction)
Downtown Taunton: 510 daily, -160 reduction (~23% reduction)
Taunton Depot: 400 daily, -10 reduction (~3% reduction)
Freetown (FR branch): 180 daily, -140 reduction (~43% reduction)
Fall River Depot (FR branch): 840 daily, +100 increase (~11% increase)
Battleship Cove (FR branch): 240 daily, +30 increase (~12% increase)
King's Highway (NB branch): 520 daily, +60 increase (~11% increase)
Whale's Tooth: 680 daily, +80 increase (~11% increase)

The inside-495 stops get absolutely hammered by the lack of mobility around downtown Boston and constrained rapid transit with increasing severeness the further in you get. That's no surprise; every commuter rail line suffers like this. The 4 intracity stops in FR and NB get about an 11% increase by adjusting the projections out to mid-2030's. That's encouraging for trending, but also not at all unexpected. And Freetown is just an all-around dog that needs a closer look as to why it's imploding.

But pull up the Blue Book and look where these boardings land in the greater picture. Fall River Depot, the highest-by-far ridership stop, is most similar in boardings to luminaries like Bridgewater (Middleboro), Forge Park (Franklin), Swampscott (Newburyport/Rockport), and South Acton (Fitchburg). Whale's Tooth is most similar to Hanson (Plymouth), Grafton (Worcester), and West Medford (Lowell). Downtown Taunton, the only mainline stop that tops 500 boardings because of the crippled peak schedule, is most similar to North Scituate (Greenbush), Needham Heights (Needham), West Concord (Fitchburg), Wilmington (Lowell), and Haverhill (Haverhill). The others are all meandering around the mean for the Greenbush intermediates.

Does this sound like a problem in light of the downtown Boston mobility issues, the car-free mobility issues from lack of connecting buses, and the skip-stop peak schedules preventing reverse commutes and adequate headways?






This thing is a fucking mess as-designed. I would love to hear how this is going to serve all needs. And for those who zero in on the modest growth rates for FR and NB...how exactly are you going to sustain that when the service patterns are so messed up the frequencies can't grow? How is this salvaging something "owed" to build a service this crippled at the outset. Don't you HAVE to build it with enough capacity to take that forecast demand and kick it up a notch with reverse commutes, 128-belt commutes, and lifting the ceiling on car-free connections for full car-free commutes?

And furthermore, there is some pretty stark evidence about what the drag effect is for not investing in Boston transit when mobility around downtown job destinations kills off that much forecast ridership. Just as food for thought for anyone in an "I got mine" mood about their favorite city.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

This needs to be slow-walk phased... work on Taunton first...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

More stuff from the DEIR, as I'm digesting some of this on-the-fly. . .

Station parking (ranked by parking capacity)
1. Whale's Tooth (NB Branch) - 748 spaces vs. 680 projected boardings
2. Stoughton - 636 spaces (+91 expansion), 1008 Blue Book boardings
3. Fall River Depot (FR Branch) - 518 spaces vs. 840 projected boardings
4. North Easton - 501 spaces vs. 460 projected boardings
5. Raynham - 432 spaces vs. 430 projected boardings
6. Taunton Depot - 398 spaces vs. 400 projected boardings
7. King's Highway (NB Branch) - 360 spaces vs. 520 projected boardings
t8. Canton Ctr. - 210 spaces (same as now), 600 Blue Book boardings
t8. Downtown Taunton - 210 spaces vs. 510 projected boardings
10. Freetown (FR Branch) - 173 spaces vs. 180 projected boardings
11. Easton Village - 12 spaces vs. 150 projected boardings
n/a. Battleship Cove (FR Branch) - (no parking)

So...5 out of 12 stations have parking capacity that either matches projected ridership almost 1:1 or exceeds projected ridership. 4 of these discrepancies hit the Top 6 highest-capacity lots. Original parking capacity was predicated on avg. Providence Line lot utilization, and has not been adjusted down in the designs to reflect ridership adjustments.

Anyone see a looming utilization problem here?



EDIT: Fixed for math error.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

This needs to be slow-walk phased... work on Taunton first...

Well, not only that it's the only way Fall River and New Bedford have any service growth potential whatsoever after Day 1. So proponents need to understand that this isn't a now-or-never decision, it's a good service vs. bad service decision.

Proposed schedule (actually, there isn't one charted out like every other commuter rail expansion study...the DEIR just artfully hides it in a few sentences of verbiage)

-- 10 round trips per day on each branch (peak vs. off-peak breakdown not specified).
-- 4 peak runs on each branch each peak (does not break down which of these are unidirectional-only runs and which are round trips).
-- 30 min. rush hour headway on each branch schedule (incl. skip-stop mainline stations served on each branch's schedule)
-- 18 min. rush hour headway at North Easton (the only all-stop station).
3 hour off-peak headway on each branch, 90 min. headway on mainline.
-- Does not say what 1st train/last train service hours will be. Given extreme distance and travel time...probably an early start, early finish.
-- Stoughton Line currently served by 16 IB/16 OB daily, 4 peak IB and 5 peak OB, 12 off-peak IB and 11 off-peak OB. Service may have to be supplemented by short-turns during certain slots to retain existing schedule distribution since exact off-peak and exact peak skip-stop distribution unknown.


That on top of all the other flaws:
-- No Route 128 belt commutes from South Coast.
-- No reverse-commutes whatsoever to Fall River from the Route 24 corridor.
-- Severely depressed ridership to Easton, Raynham, Taunton because all peak service runs skip-stop at outer-branch frequencies (not to mention pissing everyone off on-platform to see every other train scream through nonstop).
-- Long, annoying on-platform schedule adjustments waiting for other branch trains to pass. Long enough to eat up as much time as +3-4 additional stops.
-- Margin for OTP error so razor-thin that schedule adjustments lengthen considerably with blown slots and could result in large amounts of schedule padding built into all schedules and/or reductions of service between now and final engineering.
-- Preference for electric service not predicated at all on performance or environmental friendliness. Mode choice entirely result of razor-thin OTP margin and fear of service degradation.
-- Canton and Stoughton risk service cuts without supplemental short-turns.
-- Zone 9 fare for the infrequent service and likely miserable OTP.



So exactly one stop--the one that happens to be only 2.5 miles down the road from Stoughton--gets a primo rush-hour headway equivalent to what every other mainline enjoys. Everything else, including the existing stops unless supplemented, gets half that. And fewer peak slots than Greenbush and Needham. 90 mins. off-peak frequencies on the main (worse than current Stoughton, so supplementals needed). 3 hours off-peak on the branches.

Now how is the most infrequent and delay-risked commuter rail service in all New England east of Waterbury, CT supposed to fulfill everyone's hopes and dreams like that? And how is it that this massive premium for the electric infrastructure is justified when the electrics are a giant Army Corps con to hide the capacity and OTP vulnerabilities? And how are they expecting this to transform car-free life when one city can't get its bus routes anywhere near its stops and the two TOD paradise intermediates (North Easton and Raynham) have no buses whatsoever? And how is this supposed to return car-ful investment when the parking capacity is predicated 1:1 on the system's high outlier (Providence) and has never been adjusted down for the reduced ridership? And how are Canton and Stoughton supposed to support this when they have no assurances they won't lose transit in the deal?


This is a scam. I would like to know why the South Coast is so desperate for self-esteem that it would willingly embrace a scam that hits them as hard as everyone else. I don't get that. And maybe that's why the arguments for have at this point whittled down to nothing but raw emotion.



The only way the cities are going to get what they need are:
-- Cut it into 2 phases. Now. It cannot be as a single build if the state already conceded a single-track mainline now and for the first 10-20 years of service to appease the NIMBY's and environmentalists until they're no longer afraid of trains and no longer will notice the difference between 1 track and 2.
-- Diesel. Because electric here was an elaborate lie, nothing more. This is exactly the kind of service a push-pull diesel hauling bi-levels is most efficient at handling.
-- Build it to Taunton Depot as designed.
-- Run a FULL all-stops schedule to Taunton D., trimming no more than Ruggles and Hyde Park Expanded over current Stoughton schedule. Start at Stoughton+ with room to grow up to the top limit imposed by the single-track. This instantly recovers the ridership passed up by all the skip-stopping.
-- Recalibrate the parking metrics on something REALISTIC, and put each of the 5 non-Easton V./non-Canton Ctr. stations on a parking diet. Since this is the T we're talking, I would settle for just a "correct" commuter rail metric even if that's still an overly parking-weighted commuter rail metric.
-- Expand Middleboro layover, upgrade the Middleboro Secondary, and deadhead layover trains to M'boro in lieu of a Taunton layover facility. Short-term idling only near Taunton.
-- Express buses from FR/NB to Taunton Depot or Downtown Taunton.
-- Get a local BAT route to North Easton and a GATRA route to Raynham. Do not shortchange the local RTA's at being able to serve these stops and increase their frequencies.


When it's time to go further:
-- Double track the whole Phase I fucker.
-- Build the branches as designed...single + passing sidings.
-- Parking diets at all non-B'ship Cove stops to the revised-down metrics.
-- Find out why Freetown isn't working and come up with a better siting plan. The branch needs a spacer somewhere, but does it need it there if the demand is failing it this much? Be prepared to punt this till later and run non-stop to FR Depot if there are no good answers.
-- MUST find robust solution for the Fall River bus connections problem.
-- Engage RIDOT on whether a Newport shuttle or limited thru-running from the FR is worth multi-state cooperation...since Newport is a longstanding user of the Boston express buses.
-- Model the full double-track capacity (i.e. crossover placement) for expressing Cape Cod trains via Stoughton-Taunton-Middleboro as limited-stop bypass of Old Colony local congestion. Full double-tracked main has more capacity than will ever be needed, since the NEC to Canton now becomes the ultimate traffic ceiling for the main.
-- Run EACH branch at a peak schedule equivalent to what the Phase I starter schedule was on the Stoughton-Taunton mainline. 4 all-stops rush hour runs per peak per branch with as many additional peak slots as needed added. Goal is that same baseline peak frequencies as the "crippled" skip-stop service now get FR or NB riders all-stops to any intermediate, while all above-and-beyond peak frequencies beyond those 4 AM/4 PM have flex to shoot for optimal travel time by skip-stopping (say...all stop at 1 of 2 Taunton stations, Stoughton, Canton Jct., Route 128...but everything else is open for negotiation and can be scrambled into any skip-stop combination). 1 hr. off-peak headways on each branch as the floor, par for the commuter rail course. Generous overall future growth room.
-- Flex for super-expresses like Cape alt routes or Newport-Boston limiteds ("Newport Flyer", or 1-2 peak-only runs).


There. Now does that seem something worth waiting for? And if at worst case the South Coast gets screwed out of anything, wouldn't cheap 20 min. peak frequency express buses to Taunton timed with 25 min. peak frequency trains do a pretty nice job of it while costing less than the price of getting gouged for parking?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

A well thought out plan. I would actually support that(not at $2.2b though). As lrfox indicated though, they just want the damn train now, whether it works or not.

Yeah...well, you get exactly what you wish for at $2.2B and climbing. A train that doesn't work.


It doesn't need to be phased because the cities aren't ready yet. It needs to be phased because the fucking train doesn't work--at all, for anyone--unless you do phase it.

But phasing wouldn't cost $2.2B. That's the electrification lie that's doubling the costs over something that already was too expensive. The state screwed the pooch by promising the mainline towns and swamp-thing NIMBY's a single track starter first before realizing how much it gutted the service plan. Therefore the great electrification fairy has to cover their asses by shaving 20 seconds off per stop to achieve impossibly tight-margin train meets. Until final analysis says they can't even do that and they end up slashing the headways even further to be no different from what they would've been under diesel. For $1B extra. They could build it diesel to Taunton, double-track it Taunton, then build the rest for half the price tag if they didn't cook the books thrice over on the service plan, or use completely bullshit metrics to determine station parking.


South Coast should sort of care about little things like whether the train works. The fact they don't seem to--much at all--leads one to suspect they don't want transit to Boston, they want a giant cardboard cutout lottery-winning check and excuse for a crowd to shout "We're #1" and feel good for a couple minutes until realizing absolutely nothing's changed about their prospects.

Personally, if I lived there and I started having to pay new taxes for this...I'd probably prefer there was some sort of thing left behind at the end that FUCKING WORKED at a basic level of functioning and that maybe provided a little bit of reciprocal economic benefit to fellow citizens. As opposed to just a monument to that one time we 'dun showed Beacon Hill who's what. But that's just me.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

It seems to me, that there are so many better ways of spending $2b. Start with parking and rolling stock on existing lines (e.g Attleboro, Middleboro, Red Line)

The state and Taunton both would be better served by getting to Taunton from Attleboro (and spend the money upgrading the NEC, or diverting some of it via Fairmont. (electrifying Fairmont, addingn DMUs to 128...etc)

Density of service (trains per hour) is what makes transit work.--and the money would be better spent intensifying existing services-- this has gotten truer as the costs (and limitations) of re-activating Stoughton-Taunton have spiraled out of control.

If the Attleboro-Taunton-Middleboro line were upgraded, it also creates the possiblity of
- Taunton-Boston service
- South Coast - NYC intercity service..
- Seasonal NYC - Cape / South Coast service
- Seasonal Boston - South Coast service

A line via Easton pretty much locks us in to low-frequency, low-payback service on super-expensive rails.

 

[OSUPhantom]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Yeah...well, you get exactly what you wish for at $2.2B and climbing. A train that doesn't work.


It doesn't need to be phased because the cities aren't ready yet. It needs to be phased because the fucking train doesn't work--at all, for anyone--unless you do phase it.

But phasing wouldn't cost $2.2B. That's the electrification lie that's doubling the costs over something that already was too expensive. The state screwed the pooch by promising the mainline towns and swamp-thing NIMBY's a single track starter first before realizing how much it gutted the service plan. Therefore the great electrification fairy has to cover their asses by shaving 20 seconds off per stop to achieve impossibly tight-margin train meets. Until final analysis says they can't even do that and they end up slashing the headways even further to be no different from what they would've been under diesel. For $1B extra. They could build it diesel to Taunton, double-track it Taunton, then build the rest for half the price tag if they didn't cook the books thrice over on the service plan, or use completely bullshit metrics to determine station parking.


South Coast should sort of care about little things like whether the train works. The fact they don't seem to--much at all--leads one to suspect they don't want transit to Boston, they want a giant cardboard cutout lottery-winning check and excuse for a crowd to shout "We're #1" and feel good for a couple minutes until realizing absolutely nothing's changed about their prospects.

Personally, if I lived there and I started having to pay new taxes for this...I'd probably prefer there was some sort of thing left behind at the end that FUCKING WORKED at a basic level of functioning and that maybe provided a little bit of reciprocal economic benefit to fellow citizens. As opposed to just a monument to that one time we 'dun showed Beacon Hill who's what. But that's just me.

I'd be happy to phase it, it should start with Taunton, then NB, then Fall River. That I will agree with you on to judge which ridership projections are more correct. Regardless that will not happen because that's not the way public works...well work.

Regarding the issue of single track, is it ideal? No. But several major commuter lines have single track sections. I take the Forge Park/495 line everyday into work and a good chunk of that line is single track and that line operates relatively well. I have no issue with a diesel train and if it reduced costs I'd be happy to accept that.

In terms of the argument the South Coast just wants to feel special, that's just totally off base. Those who want the South Coast Rail want the Taunton, Fall River, and New Bedford Triangle to have an opportunity to catch up to the rest of the state and want an option to get top Boston that doesn't consist of sitting in 24 traffic for 2 hours. 24 has absolutely terrible traffic, far more than I think opponents are willing to admit, particularly around the Taunton/140 interchange/44 sections where even average volume get slow everything down to a crawl. If I were to drive from Whale's Tooth in New Bedford to Ruggles Station it probably would take me 2+ hrs in peak hour traffic.

I'm not sure what "prospects" you're referring to but if you're implying South Coast is going downhill that simply doesn't match the facts. I can't speak for Fall River but New Bedford this past year has seen significant improvement in the city. The North End Waterfront saw about $85 million in investment, the city's bond rating improved for the first time in a long time, and the city's port is on track to become a huge hub for water commerce and development. Population estimates show the city breaking 100,000, making it eligible for more grant and federal opportunities.

If you're your argument is becoming that the South Coast is too stupid or uninformed to understand this issue then I don't see this as an objective debate but furthering my point that some people just don't get the idea that a world exists beyond 93.

 

[cozzyd]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

OSU:

The issue is single tracking with a branch, which divides the frequencies possible in half.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I'd be happy to phase it, it should start with Taunton, then NB, then Fall River. That I will agree with you on to judge which ridership projections are more correct. Regardless that will not happen because that's not the way public works...well work.

Regarding the issue of single track, is it ideal? No. But several major commuter lines have single track sections. I take the Forge Park/495 line everyday into work and a good chunk of that line is single track and that line operates relatively well. I have no issue with a diesel train and if it reduced costs I'd be happy to accept that.

The problem with single track here is that it's a branched line with the branches splitting dozens of miles further out of town than any other line. For example. . .

-- The Old Colony is infamously constrained by the single-track segments in Dorchester and Quincy. And has to run skip-stop at JFK, Quincy Center, and Braintree to feed its branches. But the mainline goes only 11 miles and an average of 20 minutes before it's completely split off into the branches, all 3 skip-stop stations are Red Line duplicates, and by hugging the far Dot Ave. side platforms of South Station it can usually get in and out with no conflicting movements whatsoever to any other line's trains. Rush hour trips are constrained to 4 per commute on Greenbush, Kingston/Plymouth, and Middleboro...much like FR/NB would be. But all of those get to be round trips, so the reverse-commute options are excellent. The off-peak coverage is excellent, with 1 hour spacing all day on Middleboro and Kingston with last-outbounds of the night going pretty decently late. And all 3 branches get 24 daily round trips with even IB/OB splits.

That is a BIG difference from 10 FR and 10 NB round-trips, needing to be supplemented by unidirectional skip-stops of the highest-demand mainline stations in order to achieve the same 4 per-rush trips to each branch, and needing to be supplemented with Stoughton short-turns to avoid transit loss at the existing stops.


-- The Eastern Route is total mainline double-tracked except for that one half-mile tunnel. As the only other non-NEC branched line it's not comparable at all. It likewise splits its main inside Route 128, but makes all stops with no need to skip-stop. Each branch gets 13 IB/13 OB per day, and the mainline gets supplemented with additional short-turns for a grand total of 31 IB/29 OB trips per day.


-- Franklin is a branch-less mainline, and thus manages a very generous 32 trains per day. If you read the Foxboro Commuter Rail Feasibility Study you can see that the existing line is so far under-capacity that 64 daily trains (32 IB/32 OB), 32 per branch (16 IB/16 OB), only requires about 1.2 miles of extra double tracking inside the borders of Norwood, a crossover installation at Franklin, and thru-routing of the Foxboro schedule to the Fairmount Line instead of NEC is all that's required to 2x the mainline frequencies. And $84M dollars as the high estimate for pulling off.

That is two Franklin branches that each do 3x the number of frequencies as Fall River or New Bedford, and each mainline stop with approximately 6x the daily frequencies. Stratospheric difference, and not one inch of new double tracking will get laid anywhere from a few hundred feet north of Windsor Gardens station to Forge Park to make it happen.


No other commuter rail line on the entire system has such anemic schedules or so much skip-stopping of critical intermediate stations required in order to keep the number of daily trains from slipping into the middle-high single digits. Amtrak Inland Regionals from Springfield to Boston may achieve 50% of Fall River or New Bedford's daily trains by the time SCR opens. Downeaster may achieve 70% or 80% of Fall River or New Bedford's daily trains by the time SCR opens. Cape Flyer may achieve 50-60% of Fall River or New Beford's daily trains by the time SCR opens if it rolls out an off-peak schedule. That's how bad that is. The South Coast needs to reckon with just how bad this is.

In terms of the argument the South Coast just wants to feel special, that's just totally off base. Those who want the South Coast Rail want the Taunton, Fall River, and New Bedford Triangle to have an opportunity to catch up to the rest of the state and want an option to get top Boston that doesn't consist of sitting in 24 traffic for 2 hours. 24 has absolutely terrible traffic, far more than I think opponents are willing to admit, particularly around the Taunton/140 interchange/44 sections where even average volume get slow everything down to a crawl. If I were to drive from Whale's Tooth in New Bedford to Ruggles Station it probably would take me 2+ hrs in peak hour traffic.

Look...you were the one who kicked off this discussion two pages ago with a shot at pejorative city-on-city comparison. Don't fling "off-base" accusations at the framing you yourself set for this whole exchange.

I'm not sure what "prospects" you're referring to but if you're implying South Coast is going downhill that simply doesn't match the facts. I can't speak for Fall River but New Bedford this past year has seen significant improvement in the city. The North End Waterfront saw about $85 million in investment, the city's bond rating improved for the first time in a long time, and the city's port is on track to become a huge hub for water commerce and development. Population estimates show the city breaking 100,000, making it eligible for more grant and federal opportunities.

And please note that I drew very sharp distinctions between Fall River's and New Bedford's readiness for this. Particularly New Bedford's excellent bus tie-ins and the station siting matching the downtown nerve center 1:1. Fall River's stations are an integration mess when City Hall is the transit and development nerve center and absolutely nothing is being done to tie in transit frequencies to the CR stations. They are not ready, and the waterfront redevelopment around the Route 79 teardown is going to take so many years to get going and assist as a tie-in there is little point to having commuter rail lead by the nose.

Keep in mind that New Bedford can always get built before Fall River. You would still have many, many problems achieving acceptable train frequencies with sheer number of single-track miles, but it wouldn't be 2 branches. You could make all mainline stops and recover all of that passed-up ridership while still getting something resembling 2- instead of 3-hour off-peak headways to New Bedford and something closer to 13 daily round trips instead of 10 propped up by skip-stop and unidirectional magic tricks. Remember, there is no difference whatsoever in the all-stops off-peak schedule vs. the skip-stop peak schedule because the trains have to pause at a dead stop for several extra minutes in places for train meets with Fall River trains. You get the same exact travel times with a New Bedford-only linear build taking 4 extra stops worth of passengers and punting less-ready Fall River and Freetown to later.

But nobody talks about that, either. Because it must be a monolithic build or else. Why must it be monolithic? Nobody is substantiating this. Neither are you, omitting Fall River's relative economic development opps entirely from this conversation.

If you're your argument is becoming that the South Coast is too stupid or uninformed to understand this issue then I don't see this as an objective debate but furthering my point that some people just don't get the idea that a world exists beyond 93.

Let's try this again:

My general anger towards the Boston Metro elites aside, this investment represents a huge opportunity for all three majors cities to finally be able to attract the higher income workers from the city with the more affordable cost of living. Young profressionals who want the benefits of city living with the costs of not being in the immediate metro will find NB an attractive opportunity. New Bedford is slowly getting back on track in recent years and this will significantly help these efforts by attracting the people needed to continue the trend.

The commuter rail serves plenty of none-bedroom communities, I hardly consider Providence, Lowell, Worcester, and Plymouth to be Boston's bedroom communities yet they are all connected via commuter rail. No one has the opposition to these lines because for some reason only New Bedford and Fall River are a waste of money.

That was how YOU decided to kick off this discussion. An emotional, gut-feeling argument on city-vs.-city grievance grounds unsubstantiated by facts or numbers. It took you until this most recent post about New Bedford to cite anything. Whereas the last 2 pages have been almost nothing but facts, figures, and detailed substantiation of how the service plan is not only an abomination, but also how the service plan severely PUNISHES the South Coast's ridership growth. While offering solutions--phasing--that HELP the cities from being permanently consigned to the worst and most-afterthought train service in Eastern New England, and HELP it from being punished by fallout from the cost which will sharply diminish the state's willingness to fill in the double-tracking. It is not like it'll be "Oh, this service is crippled...lets's expedite the second track ASAP for another coupled hundred $M!" No. If the service fails upon start you will never get the second track or a single extra train for 30 more years. Plymouth/Cordage Park on a grand scale. That's how it'll be.

And yes, the DEIR's own words quantify in the ridership reductions just how much the de-investment in Boston's rapid transit system hurts the line's patronage. When commuter rail riders get dumped at the terminal and can't move around town because the subway is overloaded and coming unglued at an alarming rate, ALL commuter rail lines suffer. This one being an order of magnitude weaker service than any other takes it on the chin bigtime. Eastern MA cities are not isolated fiefdoms. It's all interconnected. And if you want to be better interconnected with Boston you not only have a vested interest in getting around Boston, but you are willingly consenting to take on that vested interest by virtue of having any new transit schedule to Boston. City-vs.-city is as pointless as it is emotional. South Coast needs to care deeply about the implementation. If the service doesn't work on their end and doesn't work at Boston's end, everyone loses.


OK? So don't blame us for putting you on the defensive when that's the chip-on-shoulder this discussion was framed on. Nobody wants to punish the South Coast for not being something. What I'm trying to say here is think about whether "build this now" is actually going to stimulate the South Coast economy in real terms. Or is it going to place a ceiling on it for a quarter century because the cities, through no fault of their own, get tagged with Big Dig ignominy over the $2B train that doesn't work. Please think about that. This doesn't end at Opening Day. The fallout for doing it all wrong has far-reaching implications. And weighing phasing on whether to do it RIGHT matters more than you might realize for reviving the area, despite the trust issues on making it happen. This is constructive criticism, not a value judgment on people's worth.

 

[davem]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

A quick summary of other rail projects in the general area

Downeaster
From the very start, I'm positive the NNEPRA saw trains running from Boston to Bangor and from Maine to Montreal and NYC. But they knew that was politically and financially impossible right off the bat, so they did Boston to Portland. They did it cheaply, by upgrading existing track slowly over time (note, they did not rebuild the much faster and straighter Eastern route). The cities were responsible for their own stations, most used them as catalysts for redevelopment. A few years later, its been extended, and Augusta looks like a real possibility. Talks are in progress about an overnight train to Montreal, and NYC looks like it will be a reality in some form within the next few years. None of that would have happened if they tried to do it all at once (see: California).

Cape Flyer
I'm not sure the endgame of the organizing group here, but what is known is they started with slow upgrades to existing track, settling for slow speeds and crappy stations just to get trains running. And it was a smash success. Now there is the potential within a few years for full blown commuter service to Buzzards Bay or Hyannis, new stations to be added, etc, etc.

"Knowledge Corridor"
Incremental upgrades to a freight line. Slow service via an Amtrak shuttle for the past decade. Proof of concept has worked, now new stations are being added and a full blown commuter schedule is due to start.

Rhode Island
Started with existing NEC infrastructure, contracted with the (T) to get a few trains running the extra miles to Providence. Slowly increased that number of trains. Extended the line one station stop at a time over a number of years, paying for those stations itself. Now is looking at starting its own dedicated service, and starting new service on existing freight lines.

These projects vary massively in size, scope, and service patterns. But notice the distinct similarities? Slow incremental upgrades, realistic goal setting, NO emphasis on stations or station design, utilization of existing infrastructure and travel patterns.



Now you have the South Cost.
-All or nothing build. Fuck phasing, fuck one city at a time, fuck Taunton with bus feeders. It needs to be everything or nothing!
-Station bloat. Multiple, climate controlled stations for the terminal cities, architect designed palaces along the line. It's a new service: it should be asphalt with a wooden mini-high.
-Politics. I didn't really mention it above, but I don't believe any of the above services were major talking points in elections, or a certain Pols pet project. They were spawned by a real need and put together by commissions with a goal of starting actual rail service, not getting votes.
-Waste of funds. I can't remember whether its almost as much, or more than, but either way the amount of money spent on "studying" this thing is around the same that it was originally projected to cost to fully build it.
-Proven demand. The numbers have been proven to be padded. There are MULTIPLE documented projects that have a better return on investment, and less cost per rider than this one (both blue line extensions being a paramount example, although I would venture the T running to Woonsocket or anywhere in NH would also work out better costwise).



I am an advocate for the South Coast getting rail service. I am just not an advocate for this current plan getting followed through on, enough money has been pissed away with nothing to show for it. I grew up on the MTA/NJT Port Jervis line; a line which terminates in a city with a population around 11000, runs through nothing but farms and a spattering of small towns most of it's length, and takes about two hours to do so. It also gets the worst of the worst equipment wise, and requires a transfer in Secaucus to get into the city.
So if the PJ line works, this can too. But the PJ line was nothing but asphalt strips for years and only recently got a few upgrades after the transfer opened and ridership showed an upward trend. Upgrades have been few and far between, and warranted by merit.


If the south coast cities truly want a transportation link to Boston, then a real commission needs to be formed that's not privy to the whims of local politics. Real ridership trends need to be evaluated and cost/benefit analysis done to see what really is the best way to serve real and projected demand. Simple upgrades and paths of least resistance followed. Right now the whole thing is nothing but a political balloon, one that's rising too fast and is going to pop.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

A well thought out plan. I would actually support that(not at $2.2b though). As lrfox indicated though, they just want the damn train now, whether it works or not.

I don't know many people that wouldn't support that. It's how it should be done. The reason "they want the damn thing now" is because there's zero confidence that progress would be made on any proposal if the current plans were scrapped. Most people think that if they don't get the current proposal, they'll get nothing. Actually, most people think that they're going to get nothing anyway.

It's also worth pointing out that most people are unaware that what they're getting in the current plan is an inherently flawed product anyway. The average person on the South Coast has no idea that it's going to be almost entirely single tracked, infrequent service with long headways (most probably don't know what a headway is). And, again, I'm not certain that they'd be as disappointed as some on AB think they will. The South Coast is not a region that has great transit options to begin with. We're talking about a region where SRTA is the primary transit provider and they don't set the bar too high.

My personal take is this: it should be built in a phased approach starting with Taunton. $2.2 Billion is absurd. The currently proposed schedules are weak (and will be difficult to meet), and the trip is just a little too long. However, I have zero faith that if the current proposal was to be scrapped any phased approached would ever happen in my lifetime. That's why in spite of the significant flaws, empty promises (i.e. single-handedly revitalizing Fall River and New Bedford),and the absurd price tag, I would still like to see it get done. My hope is that over the years (especially if RI gets serious about a NPT extension), improvements will be made to increase speeds, better headways, and a better schedule. It's wishful thinking, but I don't see anything getting done if the current proposal is scrapped.

On a different note, I think davem mentioned something about "bloated stations." I may be wrong, but I'm about 90% certain that the South Coast Rail project only includes platforms. The proposed stations in Fall River and New Bedford are the responsibility of the municipality and not funded through the project. I know many of the renderings displayed TOD and large station structures, but from my understanding, those were mostly to show the potential for development around the stations, not what they're actually building.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Another other thing this project is entirely tone-deaf on is freight. Both the ports of Fall River and New Bedford have big plans for Massport upgrades. Harbor dredging and substantial expansion of rail-on-dock shipping, since they are 2 of the 5 instate ports with rail access.

All of that played big in the fine print of the big $100M CSX sale. CSX got IOU's in that deal to get its wide-clearance route from Framingham to Middleboro Yard (comprising the Framingham Secondary, NEC from Mansfield to Attleboro, and Middleboro Secondary) upgraded for heavyweight 286,000 lb. cars. CSX then outsourced the FR and NB branches to Cape Rail's freight subsidiary MassCoastal, which can swing more more frequent service to the ports and stimulate new business on the branches than CSX's one-per-day trains could...while in turn making CSX more $$$ overall by increasing the goods they pick up every day at Middleboro.

It's a good deal, and the upgrades dovetail with a number of passenger projects: Foxboro commuter rail, the NEC platform raisings and triple-tracking, encouraging a return of Amtrak Cape Codder service of Providence-flank Cape Flyer.


Well, that's about to get shot to hell.

-- CSX had to scream bloody murder at the Task Force and Army Corps over the Taunton Depot design, where the full-high platform ruined their clearances. It has since gotten a design change for a freight passing track akin to Anderson RTC on the Lowell Line. The T, on the other hand, predicated the whole Foxboro study on a passing track at Gillette Stadium and Amtrak's master plan has passing opportunities baked into every station and track upgrade. That was totally the Task Force and Army Corps klutzing around unaware of the multi-billion dollar conglomerate that wags the dog on the entire southside.

-- Plucky little MassCoastal was not so lucky, and had its pleas to not have its clearances clipped fall on deaf ears. No wide loads to either port because of the full-highs at Freetown, Fall River Depot, Battleship Cove, and King's Highway (Whale's Tooth is OK because it's south of the freight yard).

-- The electrification now whacks any port clearances taller than a T bi-level coach (although CSX and the Middleboro Secondary are spared by having no overhead bridges). Metal freight cars have unshielded roofs, so they can't can't get closer than 2-3 ft. from the wire without risking arcing. Oops.



What are the effects?

-- All kinds of wide and overheight freight cars can't use the ports. Here's CSX's most oft-used car types: http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/equipment/railroad-equipment/#boxcar_specs. Generally speaking the smallest-capacity boxcars, gondolas, hoppers, and tankers are fine anywhere around full-highs. So are single-stack shipping cubes like the ones that'll be coming from Southie down the Fairmount Line. It's the step-up of each car type to the ones with higher cubic volume that are the problem, as well as autoracks and anything transporting items that are strapped onto a trailer or centerbeam car overhanging the edge.

-- Those high-capacity cars are the ones that weigh the most, so the weight limit upgrades to Middleboro on CSX become a giant waste of money if the oversize car potential goes away. There is a reason why all of the weight limit upgrades in New England are concentrated to the lines that can handle oversize cars and can interchange with a big source of oversize cars. Wreck this and CSX's massive system capacity gets totally wasted here and they lose all interest in the ports for contributing little extra to their massive Worcester profit center. (Note: this in turn could dim their enthusiasm for going whole-hog in Southie). If all its wheeling-and-dealing on the South Coast doesn't give them an avenue to make much more money than the light assortment of single-customer miscellany they send to Middleboro, they're going to stop caring.

-- This means both ports are going to have a lot more trouble carving out an identity. How much seafood catch profit is there going to be if they can only use the smallest-size refrigerated cars? Not going to become a big produce center either or draw much interest from the humongous Stop & Shop warehouse in Freetown. No big raw materials unloading either...stuff like big spools of metal coils or bulk like that. Everett's now the only state port that can handle those. No autoracks; has to be Davisville, RI or a rail-reactivated Moran Terminal in Charlestown. Southie is earmarked as the shipping cube specialty terminal, so that won't be South Coast's bread-and-butter. What are they going to move in bulk when limited to the smallest-capacity cars?

-- Ports of Davisville, RI and New London, CT not only have wide clearance and overheight clearance, but either have or will get full double-stack 22 ft. tall clearance. So some sort of higher-capacity specialty like "seafood central" the same way Davisville is "auto delivery central" is necessary here to differentiate FR/NB from the other nearby south-facing ports in that sweet spot on the Sound that doesn't require a detour around the Cape. Oh, well...guess Connecticut and Rhode Island collect all that tax revenue now since they don't have a 2-page list of clearance restrictions.



The wires are absolutely brutal for this. Killer. That's the one that's going to do the most economic harm. And South Coast should be asking tough questions about this, because wanting the broken train now in one fell swoop fucks that much the economic growth of those ports that are so critical to boosting the cities.

And even if it were diesel at least one of these branches should be left wide-clearance to differentiate the two and offer up a second option to Everett for taking those kinds of oversize loads. Maybe that's where Phase I Taunton sends the station designs for the branches to finishing school so when they get picked back up the clearance branch gets passing sidings. Maybe they have to wait to see which port plan shakes out as the better bet for wider clearances. Maybe this is what forces a New Bedford-only Phase I and punt of Fall River to Phase II: designate FR the clearance route and re-evaluate whether they need to build Freetown or Battleship Cove at all so Depot's the only design they have to modify for a passing track.


You get the point. Why is it not registering how much economic limitation this plan is imposing? And why is their not consideration as to how phasing HELPS solve these issues and sets up a better stimulus that's worth the gamble of trying to hold the state to the follow-through.

That kind of stuff should be dominating the conversation if this were a fact-based and not emotion-based conversation.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I don't know many people that wouldn't support that. It's how it should be done. The reason "they want the damn thing now" is because there's zero confidence that progress would be made on any proposal if the current plans were scrapped. Most people think that if they don't get the current proposal, they'll get nothing. Actually, most people think that they're going to get nothing anyway.

It's also worth pointing out that most people are unaware that what they're getting in the current plan is an inherently flawed product anyway. The average person on the South Coast has no idea that it's going to be almost entirely single tracked, infrequent service with long headways (most probably don't know what a headway is). And, again, I'm not certain that they'd be as disappointed as some on AB think they will. The South Coast is not a region that has great transit options to begin with. We're talking about a region where SRTA is the primary transit provider and they don't set the bar too high.

My personal take is this: it should be built in a phased approach starting with Taunton. $2.2 Billion is absurd. The currently proposed schedules are weak (and will be difficult to meet), and the trip is just a little too long. However, I have zero faith that if the current proposal was to be scrapped any phased approached would ever happen in my lifetime. That's why in spite of the significant flaws, empty promises (i.e. single-handedly revitalizing Fall River and New Bedford),and the absurd price tag, I would still like to see it get done. My hope is that over the years (especially if RI gets serious about a NPT extension), improvements will be made to increase speeds, better headways, and a better schedule. It's wishful thinking, but I don't see anything getting done if the current proposal is scrapped.

On a different note, I think davem mentioned something about "bloated stations." I may be wrong, but I'm about 90% certain that the South Coast Rail project only includes platforms. The proposed stations in Fall River and New Bedford are the responsibility of the municipality and not funded through the project. I know many of the renderings displayed TOD and large station structures, but from my understanding, those were mostly to show the potential for development around the stations, not what they're actually building.

The station overbuilds are still getting hideous amounts of statewide funding. It's a problem, though I agree it's a little bit of a mischaracterization that the T's debt is the only party financing it. It's not. There are more varied parties involved.

However, see my post on the last page about parking over-capacity. There were seriously flawed metrics chosen to determine how many spaces go at the intermediate stops. And that ends up being the biggest station-related cost bloater by far across the whole project. You have stops that have never had their parking capacities revised down to reflect several revisions of the ridership getting revised down, with total whoppers of a discrepancy. For land acquisition, construction cost, mitigation cost to the local street grids, and operating cost for such loss-leader excess...that's at least $100M if not a couple in completely senseless overruns that have been swept under the rug by the planners. It's the towns that are going to take this on the chin when they can't fill those lots (because the service is broken) and get blamed for not generating enough demand to increase service.

It's like I said. This is not a matter of "build it broken, then fix it later". If it's broken it doesn't generate the ridership, and the state NEVER appropriates the money to double-track it. You end up with 10 Cordage Parks that never get spoken of again, not a foot in the door for service that grows.


I am not seeing a fact-based argument for why this has to be built broken in one swoop. It's all emotional: "We've been lied to so long, we have to get something! Even if we don't know what that is or if it helps at all, or if it ends up hurting us in the end!" That is not a rational response, and if Cadillac Deval's successor hasn't mixed up his or her own personal batch of Kool-Aid that makes them believe harder than the facts South Coast leaders may well need to have a fact-based argument for a change to save this project. Because no one can look at this with a straight face and real numbers and say it's going to help. There's huge risk on a number of fronts that it will HURT future investment.

Phasing isn't a punishment. It's the only way to keep the South Coast--and everyone else--from getting fucked over 9 ways to Sunday. The money's a scam, the service is a scam, the constrictions on other things like freight commerce and stimulating future growth are a scam. "Please scam me, I'm starved for attention!" isn't a rational belief.

 

[cozzyd]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

One thing that should be brought up is that while SCR would be an awful product by Boston commuter standards, there is at least one service I know of that is "worse":

http://www.acerail.com/Getting-You-There/Maps-Stations

 

[Equilibria]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I am not seeing a fact-based argument for why this has to be built broken in one swoop. It's all emotional: "We've been lied to so long, we have to get something! Even if we don't know what that is or if it helps at all, or if it ends up hurting us in the end!" That is not a rational response, and if Cadillac Deval's successor hasn't mixed up his or her own personal batch of Kool-Aid that makes them believe harder than the facts South Coast leaders may well need to have a fact-based argument for a change to save this project. Because no one can look at this with a straight face and real numbers and say it's going to help. There's huge risk on a number of fronts that it will HURT future investment.

Phasing isn't a punishment. It's the only way to keep the South Coast--and everyone else--from getting fucked over 9 ways to Sunday. The money's a scam, the service is a scam, the constrictions on other things like freight commerce and stimulating future growth are a scam. "Please scam me, I'm starved for attention!" isn't a rational belief.

First of all, I don't see much value in placing a snarky nickname on the first Governor in thirty years to even consider making rational and well-funded transit investments. He may be "Cadillac Deval" as compared to your hyper-pragmatic bare-bones aesthetics-be-damned approach, but I doubt any politician will ever see it differently. Also, it isn't totally false that building nice stations and comfortable waiting areas and making a transit line seem permanent DOES gain you ridership. It may not be enough to justify the cost, but it's not nothing.

The rational argument against phasing is one we hear all the time on this site, F-Line: the first phase of a project is the only one they're committed to build. It's a little different for something like GLX which is committed in its entirety and phased only in terms of scope, but can you think of a single successful transit project in Boston that actually primed a route with buses, proved the ridership, then made the leap and built a train? The MBTA are experts at breaking promises, in JP, Watertown, etc.

It's all well and good to you if the project dies after Taunton, because that's all you think is a good idea anyway. It's little consolation to the people driving 90 minutes from NB to Boston each day, however, that the state dodged the money sink of getting them to work 30% faster...