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

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...
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

What a joke. Leading the public on.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Scalziand said:
A while ago I was trying to think of ways to use the Old Colony Line without sacrificing a downtown Taunton station. Naturally, the result is CTP worthy.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.977...m1!4b1!4m2!6m1!1s12tk4Im2D_H06OjF8BjLoeb7931w
Click to expand...

It's such a ridiculous pork barrel project it's not even funny. Billions of dollars to get 100 people on a 90 minute train ride to Boston... There's just SO MANY better ways to spend this money. If they have to pretend that every part of the state is equal and pander to the rural and hinterland voters, then establish better intercity transit on the South Coast. Connect it to Providence. Fund the schools. Do SOMETHING. You don't get to just say "oh, this city doesn't have a rail connexion to Boston, let's build one and everything will change! Isn't all rail transit great?"
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

It became "billions" of dollars due to the constant delaying of the project and nutty
requirements like "electric" locomotive stance of the Army Corp plus the things like the needless five mile trestle through the Hock. I could go on and on since following it since the early-mid Nineties.

And as far as ridership goes, stop harping on the endpoint of the lines. Tired of this
red herring being thrown out time and time again. The initial meat of the ridership will be Taunton-Raynham-Easton (though the later two would never admit it).

I guess its okay to pander to the interior RT495/Boston area and ignore the rest of
Southeastern Mass or beyond Worcester. I suppose the new "Wachusett Extension"
should be reviled as SOCO Rail is because the ridership might be on par with NB/FR. Yet
$55 million was just spent that largely helps Pan Am more than it does the MBTA.

In the end, maybe no more new projects should be built, kill the DMU/EMU fantasies, until
the current commuter rail system is brought up to snuff. This slow motion implosion of equipment and physical plant issues are difficult to watch.

D
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

The billions would be better spent on removing the single-track pinch from the Old Colony (call that $1b) which immediately gets you:
- lots and lots of service to Middleboro for park-and-ride and buses that can fan out across the whole of the South Coast
- a great way to then incrementally extend south or branch southwest.(where we can roll it out through a series of $300m extensions as ridership demands.

It isn't that we've "forgotten" the South Coast, it is that the South Coast happens to have (1) few natural demand concentration points and (2) as much or more in common with Providence than Boston

Which makes it hard to show actual daily ridership.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

GP40MC, one-stop extensions are a different matter than building whole new lines. Our genius former governor wanted a commuter to Springfield, too: that's idiotic.

Nobody is arguing to "forget the South Coast", but that projects should aim to benefit the greatest numbers of people per dollar spent. And, the entire state economy runs on Boston, like it or not... more money taken from there through taxes means more money dispersed back to the rest of the state.

This is like a microcosm of the way Amtrak MUST have lines running through all states, so we waste millions on trains nobody rides in Nebraska and Kansas while the northeastern rails crumble. The sad thing is that just like SCR, this spends government money that benefits a small constituency (construction, maintenance workers) but does little to nothing to otherwise grow the local economies for the people in those areas. There's no red herring here; projected ridership for the entire project is 4500 (or almost $0.5million per new ridership, and that's from the parties interested in pursuing the project and painting the rosiest picture possible. Cost per rider of the Wachusett (as originally planned at 55 million/400 new riders is $137k. GLX even at the egregious 3 billion tag still spends only 57k/new rider. Big difference. As I said in the initial post, if the money is to be spent on the South Coast, spend it on things that benefit the most people possible, help the local economy the most... Not just say, "Hey, transit for everyone is always good in every case!" This isn't it.

I waited for the Orange Line for half an hour at 8:30 AM today – yes, getting what the T actually has now working properly should be the first order of business as well, but expansion projects in the future should follow utilitarian principles. Unfortunately, politics means that will never happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

As a railroad employee for 35+ years commuting from the hinterland here in Greater New Bedford, I can only say I've watched RT 140/RT 24 go from a sleepy highway to a busy,
congested mess at times (no so much RT140). So much for Providence.

I am sure there will be no problem with the Army Corp or abutting communities to add a lane to the entire length of RT24 again. So what if it abuts the southern end of the Hock!
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

GP40MC said:
As a railroad employee for 35+ years commuting from the hinterland here in Greater New Bedford, I can only say I've watched RT 140/RT 24 go from a sleepy highway to a busy,
congested mess at times (no so much RT140). So much for Providence.

I am sure there will be no problem with the Army Corp or abutting communities to add a lane to the entire length of RT24 again. So what if it abuts the southern end of the Hock!
Click to expand...

What are the best and most cost efficient solutions to traffic in this region? SCR isn't being foisted on the state because it beat out all other options after a through analysis... it's just because it's a "me too" project that gets people excited because it's as shiny as the Greenbush extension. Again, it would be nice if all government spending followed logic and sound analysis rather than what looks good.
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

FK4 said:
What are the best and most cost efficient solutions to traffic in this region? SCR isn't being foisted on the state because it beat out all other options after a through analysis... it's just because it's a "me too" project that gets people excited because it's as shiny as the Greenbush extension. Again, it would be nice if all government spending followed logic and sound analysis rather than what looks good.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Nobody...absolutely nobody...tries to build a transit line arse-end first. The single most important thing before they even consider giving money to the cities is: "How you gonna get there from Boston?" And that from Day 1 of the current project incarnation has been an afterthought. This Middleboro Alternative BS is just the latest indication of how unserious the Task Force is, and the duplicity of the FCMB still trolling for votes by giving them a regular audience despite knowing damn well how unserious the plan is. No one's said a word about putting this through the GLX cost rationalization ringer for redesign...they just give them their 10 minutes every 2 months to give a threadbare PowerPoint presentation and fart unicorns in front of the board.

If they really wanted to touch this with some degree of problem-solving, Job #1 above all-else is challenging the Army Corps' fraudulent FEIR. Yes, I said fraudulent. Route 24 dumps more pollutants via runoff into that swamp in a single week than a diesel commuter rail line would in an entire year.

  • A Tier 3 emissions-compliant locomotive doing 79 MPH on arrow-straight track on flat land on the longest between-stops and between- grade-crossings distance on the whole route--all due to the swamp--is barely exerting any force at cruising speed. It's basically coasting along nearly as idle as if it were sitting at a station stop...only the emissions are dispersing quick at 79 MPH instead of hanging stationary midair over a platform.

  • The ROW is under a landbank...meaning that existing full 2-track embankment is still zoned for railroad. No one has ever been tasked with building a fucking mile-long causeway on pegs through a swamp because of new-construction upgrades to an active or reanimation of an inactive ROW in order to get up-to-spec with modern EPA regs. Proof of the Corps' bullshit lies in the Greenbush Line, which goes through just as much cumulative wetlands as the Stoughton Line on its de-abandoned segment south of Cohasset (several swamps rather than one large one). They were allowed to use the fully rail-graded embankment as-is without any of this causeway trestle horseshit, only needing to get derelict culverts and drainage up from 1960 to 2007 EPA regs. That part of the Greenbush construction was completely orthodox and fixed-cost, done no-surprises totally within budget (the scandalous NIMBY concessions were all in populated areas, not environmental). It would be no different with the Stoughton Line, but the Army Corps decided to arbitrarily poison-pill it.

  • The electric mandate is already bullshit for scheduling, and designed to paper-over how unachievable the schedule margins are. But the environmental justification is an 8-story mound of horseshit. Guess what...electric locos and EMU's can leak oil and coolant too! Just as much of it as a diesel! Just like any moving vehicle on the face of the earth needs lubricant and coolant to make powered wheels spin. The same oil and coolant leaks that runs off Route 24 into the swamp every goddamn day but maybe only springs a small leak on a trackbed at 79 MPH once a year. And they have this Jetson Shit super-absorbant substance called "plain old rock ballast" that holds the track up 1 ft. or more above ground level with graded sides specifically to trap small spills in-place for easy cleanup. If you don't have enough of it, you're not allowed to run at a 79 MPH track class. Hence, every single passenger route in the state has enough of it. Does Route 24 have a specifically absorbant surface? No...it has ground-level grass with occasional steep dropoff into wetlands wide open on the breakdown lanes.

  • Double-tracking has no effect on the environment because the goddamn ROW is already built-up on a double-track embankment. The only thing the single-track mandate does is whack the schedules so everything has to skip-stop and make long schedule-adjustment pauses at every station platform to compensate for the complete inability to handle train meets. It does nothing to physically limit the number of daily trains crossing the swamp...nothing whatsoever. The same NEC SW Corridor capacity that sets the limiter on Needham and Franklin schedules sets the schedule cap here. All the Corps done has crippled the meets to uselessness, not limited the daily slate of 79 MPH train movements through the swamp. De-crippled for functional meets the century-level cap is the same than the Franklin Line if it double-barreled Foxboro and Forge Park branches: 32 round trips per day, 16 per south-of-Taunton branch. Most likely contingent on Franklin vacating more NEC slots via Fairmount to give Stoughton more oxygen. But that's it...32 via the NEC and not one more without vulturing critical Providence slots that'll never be vultured. Did the Corps model the NEC at all when they were inventing pure bullflop about schedules through the swamp and crippling meets? No...the NEC is seldom-mentioned in the FEIR despite being the fucking first step for getting there from Boston.


This is fraud. And it hasn't been challenged. This is not the first time the Army Corps has submitted a defective-by-design FEIR to tank a project. They play politics all the time with picking winners and losers and swinging the biggest dick in the room for political capital's sake. They'll groove a softball to highway or rail projects they really like, completely torpedo others. They pulled this same shit with the I-384 fast-track extension in CT 12 years ago, with the same swamp BS poison-pilling it. All because they didn't like being told by the FTA what their priorities are.




The state can challenge this if they cared. It's a slew-footing of the FTA and any promised FTA funding commitments too. If they had pulled this shit with GLX you better believe both state and feds would've challenged it and won. It's as much a usurping of the federal Executive Branch as it is trolling the states; the FTA's relationship with the Corps is historically hostile and toxic in itself because of these chronic rogue power grabs, and many a generation of Transpo Secretaries get enraged when the FTA is make to look like fools by a Corps dealing in bad faith. It's very likely the Corps picked this project to torpedo because of how unserious the commitment is...because they don't believe there's any sack at the state level to challenge their obviously fraudulent FEIR...because the FTA knows it's a lost cause as presently constituted...and because it's basically a freebie for swinging their political capital dick around in a consequence-free environment.


But it's still fraudulent. And challenging the fraudulence is worth $1B in savings...instantaneously, before even putting it through a GLX cost eval gauntlet. If anyone cared about actually making this work...by actually caring about how one gets from Boston first...they would've thrown this FEIR right back in their faces and called for a do-over. Not a lot different from how contractor fraud got GLX to take a time-out for a do-over, only this time it's the Corps not a rogue corporation being pants-on-fire liars.


That they won't do this or even hint at it tells you all you need to know about the state-level commitment and the grift that the SCR Task Force continues perpetuating on the voting citizens of that region by pursuing this arse-end-first scam that has never gotten anything built on any other project. Fight the real enemy if this is still a thing that people actually want. "We're owed this because reasons" is just as much a denial of reality as the grift and indifference is at doing arse-end-first to the exclusion of "How you gonna get there from Boston?"
 
Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Thanks F-Line....Not to mention the fact that MBTA Commuter Rail has no electric trains to begin with. Infrastructure support for it would add even more money to the project! And if anyone, including the folks down here in SE Mass, think the Middleboro option would, in the end be any cheaper, are disillusion.

D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top