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

[JeffDowntown]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Which ones? The transportation bond bill is borrowing $18Bn for transit, etc and SCR is $935M. Money is finite, but the actual details show a commitment to a lot more than just this one project.



This is not a fact. This is an opinion. You may or may not be correct but you and I have no idea about the project's future ridership or the feelings of the FR and NB citizenry 5-15 years from now. A lot of people on this thread are acting like challenging their doomsday predictions is akin to arguing that rain isn't wet. I'd ask that you all take some time to figure out if your predictions are doom are in fact etched in stone or just your own personal speculation.

The projections are not ours, they are from the project planning documents.

As quoted in Commonwealth magazine:

"Phase 1 as proposed provides this poor level of service at an unreasonably high cost that ranges from $900 million to $1.1 billion, according to recently published reports on the preferred phased approach. That approximately $1 billion cost figure is for a total net new projected ridership of 1,600 people. Total projected daily ridership at South Coast Rail stations is 4,400 total riders. This translates to a cost-per-rider of $200,000."
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/time-to-reconsider-s-coast-rail-phased-plan/

There is no way to slice those numbers and make them seem pretty.

 

[ulrichomega]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Which ones? The transportation bond bill is borrowing $18Bn for transit, etc and SCR is $935M. Money is finite, but the actual details show a commitment to a lot more than just this one project.

Ignoring that more than half of that bond is going towards highway projects, I agree that more money for the MBTA is a good thing. But how does spending hundreds of millions on this project help other necessary projects get funded in the future? If we've got $8 Billion to spend, is spending $825 million of it on SCR the best use of funds?

Again, I want to reiterate that I'm in support of this project for the equity reasons established in this thread. That doesn't change the fact that we could be doing this project far better than we are right now.

This is not a fact. This is an opinion. You may or may not be correct but you and I have no idea about the project's future ridership or the feelings of the FR and NB citizenry 5-15 years from now. A lot of people on this thread are acting like challenging their doomsday predictions is akin to arguing that rain isn't wet. I'd ask that you all take some time to figure out if your predictions are doom are in fact etched in stone or just your own personal speculation.

The future is inherently unknowable, therefore we can't make any predictions whatsoever? I won't deny there's an element of "Disagreement means you're a bad person" on this forum sometimes, but we're talking about a line with only a small number of peak hour trains, and then 3 hour headways between those times. Ridership is going to be intrinsically limited no matter what. The OC lines have similar restrictions and get so-so ridership, but for a much shorter trip time, and it's taken them years to get to that point.

You are right though that I was wrong for using the word "fact." I apologize for that.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

The projections are not ours, they are from the project planning documents.

As quoted in Commonwealth magazine:

"Phase 1 as proposed provides this poor level of service at an unreasonably high cost that ranges from $900 million to $1.1 billion, according to recently published reports on the preferred phased approach. That approximately $1 billion cost figure is for a total net new projected ridership of 1,600 people. Total projected daily ridership at South Coast Rail stations is 4,400 total riders. This translates to a cost-per-rider of $200,000."
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/[B]opinion[/B]/time-to-reconsider-s-coast-rail-phased-plan/

There is no way to slice those numbers and make them seem pretty.

Jeff we've already covered this earlier in the thread:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1553&page=37

But let me summarize. You can't divide the total cost of a project by a one day projection in usage and claim that's an accurate take on the project or every transit proposal going would seem ridiculously expensive. You'd have to take ridership over a reasonable life of a project (say 30 years) and divide that into the total upfront cost of it to get a better assessment. I shudder to think of what the Big Dig cost on a user per one day basis using those calculations.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

The future is inherently unknowable, therefore we can't make any predictions whatsoever? I won't deny there's an element of "Disagreement means you're a bad person" on this forum sometimes, but we're talking about a line with only a small number of peak hour trains, and then 3 hour headways between those times. Ridership is going to be intrinsically limited no matter what. The OC lines have similar restrictions and get so-so ridership, but for a much shorter trip time, and it's taken them years to get to that point.

You are right though that I was wrong for using the word "fact." I apologize for that.

No worries. Part of what I'm trying to do here is point out to people that they're so certain in their opposition that they're latching onto their opinions as unchallenged scientific facts like the Earth is round and it revolves around the sun (not directed at you personally). Like you can't support the project for the reasons stated, you must be getting a payoff somewhere. Full discloser I won't be riding this train as I don't live down there and I own no property that might hypothetically increase in value. There's a lot of misinformation going around as well. Of course we can speculate as to future ridership and whether or not those official estimates will come to fruition. That's a different argument though that "I know already this will fail and anybody who disagrees is shitposting". I'm sure there are some people, somewhere, who can see the future. I've yet to come across one however.

 

[ulrichomega]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Jeff we've already covered this earlier in the thread:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1553&page=37

But let me summarize. You can't divide the total cost of a project by a one day projection in usage and claim that's an accurate take on the project or every transit proposal going would seem ridiculously expensive. You'd have to take ridership over a reasonable life of a project (say 30 years) and divide that into the total upfront cost of it to get a better assessment. I shudder to think of what the Big Dig cost on a user per one day basis using those calculations.

It provides a baseline of comparison, it's not supposed to be a meaningful comparison of day-to-day costs, or to fully encapsulate the upsides and downsides of the project. In that regard it is useful as long as we acknowledge its limitations.

For comparison:

• Sound Transit 3: $54 Billion for ~250,000 additional riders. $216,000/rider
• Crossrail: $20 Billion for 650,000 riders: ~$30,000/rider
• Dumbarton Rail Corridor: $1.6 Billion for 5,900 riders: $217,000/rider
• Hartford Line: $0.517 Billion for 1,500 riders: $344,000/rider

The disimilarities in each of these examples is self-evident, but they provide a baseline of cost comparison. As long as we're not ending our analysis with such math I don't see the harm in pointing out that $400,000/rider is a large amount of money to be spending when we could be getting more riders for not too much more money by doing the thing right in the first place. Baker has made it clear that he's got billions of dollars to throw around. Let's get some of that down in the South Coast and not half-ass this thing.

EDIT: This is off-topic, but what is going on with Denver transit? I looked them up a bit doing research for this, and their light-rail system is truly bizarre. They've got two downtown terminii being fed from one trunk line, and one line that goes from one suburb out in a random direction to another (R)? And that line is the only one that connects with one of their commuter rail lines?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

EDIT: F-Line, you mention that even Phase II is bad service. Other than the single-track section slightly limiting service why do you say that? I know you have issues with it potentially diminishing service to some NEC stations but I'm hazy on the details.

On my phone so can't do a comprehensive explainer. See this post for the crux of the issue: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=347053&postcount=1585. There's also a post from 2014 on this very thread detailing the issues.


In short: forced skip-stopping so extensive it kills ridership and outright cuts Canton/Stoughton service levels. All because of tbe forced single-tracking and complete unwillingness to so much as model NEC impacts.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I shudder to think of what the Big Dig cost on a user per one day basis using those calculations.

Actually the Big Dig tunnels do not come out too badly in the crude calculation.

Central Artery carries nominally 200,000 vehicles per day (projected to grow to 245,000 max.)
Ted Williams Tunnel carries nominally 100,000 vehicles per day (projected to grow to 120,000 capacity).
Each vehicle carries at least one person, but we'll be conservative and only calculate moving one person.

Total cost for the Big Dig Tunnels including interest is somewhere between $22 to $24 billion. (Are we including the interest burden on SCR?)

High Cost and Today's Usage calculates at $80,000 per daily user
Low Cost and Future Usage calculates at $60,000 per daily user

That looks bad compared to SCR?

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

It provides a baseline of comparison, it's not supposed to be a meaningful comparison of day-to-day costs, or to fully encapsulate the upsides and downsides of the project. In that regard it is useful as long as we acknowledge its limitations.

For comparison:

• Sound Transit 3: $54 Billion for ~250,000 additional riders. $216,000/rider
• Crossrail: $20 Billion for 650,000 riders: ~$30,000/rider
• Dumbarton Rail Corridor: $1.6 Billion for 5,900 riders: $217,000/rider
• Hartford Line: $0.517 Billion for 1,500 riders: $344,000/rider

The disimilarities in each of these examples is self-evident, but they provide a baseline of cost comparison. As long as we're not ending our analysis with such math I don't see the harm in pointing out that $400,000/rider is a large amount of money to be spending when we could be getting more riders for not too much more money by doing the thing right in the first place. Baker has made it clear that he's got billions of dollars to throw around. Let's get some of that down in the South Coast and not half-ass this thing.

A good point regarding the sentence I bolded. I did some further calcs and came up with this:

4,400 daily rides x 5 days a work week x 52 weeks a year = 1.15M trips a year. Times a 20 year lifespan lets say = approx. 23M trips. 935M / 23M trips over 20 years = approx. $40 per trip subsidy. BUT, that doesn't include the cost of the ticket itself. Say that's 20 bucks on average as people will be boarding in different zones. That's $20 bucks for a trip over the 20 year span. Not bad at all and kills the "it would be cheaper to buy everyone bus tickets or an Uber" argument.

 

[FK4]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

And now: brazen shitposting.

This is not the first time you've thrown caution to the wind and hurled a pile of poo at other posters in this very thread because Y.O.L.O. It's all right there on the previous pages. When you respond to a civil, evolving discussion with incivility and distraction...it says way more about your maturity or lackthereof than those you accuse.

If this topic is one that brings out the irrepressible temptation to behave badly, perhaps some better self-reflection is in order.

+1. He’s right up there with Rifleman in terms of anti-intellectual shitposting.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Capital cost per daily new transit rider has been THE standard for comparing transit projects since sometime in the Nixon Administration (creation of the Federal Transit Administration). It was not invented in this thread to make SCR look bad. SCR is a bad project based on the traditional standard for rating projects as good or bad.

 

[ulrichomega]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

+1. He’s right up there with Rifleman in terms of anti-intellectual shitposting.

Is the solution to poo-slinging itself more poo-slinging? Can we stop perpetuating such comments and get back to analysis of the project at hand?

A good point regarding the sentence I bolded. I did some further calcs and came up with this:

4,400 daily rides x 5 days a work week x 52 weeks a year = 1.15M trips a year. Times a 20 year lifespan lets say = approx. 23M trips. 935M / 23M trips over 20 years = approx. $40 per trip subsidy. BUT, that doesn't include the cost of the ticket itself. Say that's 20 bucks on average as people will be boarding in different zones. That's $20 bucks for a trip over the 20 year span. Not bad at all and kills the "it would be cheaper to buy everyone bus tickets or an Uber" argument.

This math doesn't hold up. Ignoring

1. People take vacations, so 52 weeks isn't accurate
2. 20 year lifespan is arbitrarily chosen. I would expect to get a lot more life out of the construction here, since it's mostly track that's survived for a while and concrete platforms
3. You need to include the cost to run the service as well if we're considering such an amortized approach, which dramatically inflates these costs above that of Uber.

The point here isn't to throw out a huge number and say "It's going to cost $X million per rider, therefore it's not worth it!" The point is to provide a comparison to similar projects to see if the cost provides commensurate benefits. I disagree with everyone in this thread that says we absolutely cannot build this because it will be the end of the world, but we're still spending a lot of money on something that isn't worth the cost. The solution then isn't to not build, the solution is to build better.

 

[DominusNovus]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

There are plenty of things that indict the educational system, but I think this specifically is more an indictment of "get-rich-quick" capitalism...

If the most highly educated people can be so taken advantage of in such a fashion, I'd say its an indictment of the educational system. Or, they're not being taken advantage of.

 

[Coyote137]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Simply doing "analysis of the project at hand" presumes that everyone involved in a discussion is doing so in good faith. To wit, MassDOT (i.e., Charlie Baker) must be engaging in the conversation in good faith, which I don't think is true.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

This math doesn't hold up. Ignoring

1. People take vacations, so 52 weeks isn't accurate
2. 20 year lifespan is arbitrarily chosen. I would expect to get a lot more life out of the construction here, since it's mostly track that's survived for a while and concrete platforms
3. You need to include the cost to run the service as well if we're considering such an amortized approach, which dramatically inflates these costs above that of Uber.

The point here isn't to throw out a huge number and say "It's going to cost $X million per rider, therefore it's not worth it!" The point is to provide a comparison to similar projects to see if the cost provides commensurate benefits. I disagree with everyone in this thread that says we absolutely cannot build this because it will be the end of the world, but we're still spending a lot of money on something that isn't worth the cost. The solution then isn't to not build, the solution is to build better.

Yes the 20 years is arbitrary, so change the calculations. 4400 trips x 5 days per week x 50 weeks per year = 1.1M trips x 30 years lets say. 935M/33M = $28 bucks per trip over the usable life of the project. Assuming on avg 20 dollars per ticket for each trip and its now an 8 dollar subsidy per ride.

Yes there is a cost to run service which might be tough to estimate, BUT there is also most likely an increase in property values and property tax revenue as a result which might also be tough to estimate.

Finally as the Commonwealth Mag article even concedes, you can't really equate a inner city subway extension ridership with commuter rail. I'd be curious how the project stacks up with maybe Greenbush although even that wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. Regarding building it better my take is its better to get the rail service started instead of waiting another 20 years for the various lawsuits to play themselves out for building through a wetlands area. The will to do this is here and now after 30 years on the drawing board, so lets get it done.

 

[ant8904]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

+1. He’s right up there with Rifleman in terms of anti-intellectual shitposting.

What I saw of what Rover said is pointing out a bunch of posts before have was speculating things real estate owners are what driving this project and etc which we have seen zero evidence. And Rover getting a little hostile by saying "maybe you're not as smart as you think you are". That is a little hostile but that's far less hostile responding the post is "anti-intellectual shitposting".

And Rifleman keeps devolving his posts into making it about Liberals and Conservatives and stuff. I fail to see how Rover saying "maybe you're not as smart as you think you are" and pointing that the previous posts really did speculate without evidence of things like real estate speculation is in the same category.


If you to see what is shitposting, go look up Armpitsofmight's posts on this site (interestingly, he perfected how to shitpost before that term was even coined). Go to reddit.com/r/memes more examples of shitposting. Rover's post is not shitposting.

Simply doing "analysis of the project at hand" presumes that everyone involved in a discussion is doing so in good faith. To wit, MassDOT (i.e., Charlie Baker) must be engaging in the conversation in good faith, which I don't think is true.

Mentioning Charlie Baker in this context is the least fitting of all the things we can indict him on at this point. It has been a desired project by even administration since Weld. But even Deval Patrick wanted this project - according to this ItemLive article, he wanted it even in the face of BLX advocates. Which again, perplexes me how this project of all projects cross state party lines.

Capital cost per daily new transit rider has been THE standard for comparing transit projects since sometime in the Nixon Administration (creation of the Federal Transit Administration). It was not invented in this thread to make SCR look bad. SCR is a bad project based on the traditional standard for rating projects as good or bad.

That's is a really good point. None of us might be true experts. There's more to consider than just Capital cost per daily new transit ride. But Capital cost per daily new transit ride is a real metric uses to discern the value of a project. And we all know using this metric says this is a bad project. Which explains why I see so much dissension on this project, but explain so little of why the State wants this so much.

I know I already got responses that the State wants this so much because the Fall River/New Bedford are the only two major cities lacking any transit. But given lack (or at least visible) support on the grassroots level, I don't see the political gains. Given the metrics (and the metrics we're using are also the same metrics experts/professionals are using) are so bad, I don't see transit planning logic either. Yet, this is the project that state would actually fight when ecnountering trouble (like when the estimate went up $2bn to $3bn - meanwhile GLX had to be saved by advocates)

----

One more thing that came to my mind on this project. I have been mentioned GLX, BLX, Red-Blue Connector, and a few others. Which are debatable as a comparison. But there's another Commuter Rail project Commuter Rail into NH. Which shows to me that the collective distaste for SCR is not a Inner Rail vs Outer Rail thing. Chatter for Commuter Rail to NH is positive here, I can find advocacy groups that are pushing for it, I can find grassroots groups on Facebook (though I also found a grassroot anti-group too), and there's even a recent survey showing 70% of NH supports it. The metrics gives a much more positive number too. Basically, just like the other projects - it has vocal support, positive discussion here, advocacy groups, and supportive metrics. And of course, both NH and MA are giving responses of reluctance. So it's not about commuter rail (though to be fair, dealing cross-state coordination is a factor that makes it not quite apples-to-apples)

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

There's more to consider than just Capital cost per daily new transit ride. But Capital cost per daily new transit ride is a real metric uses to discern the value of a project. And we all know using this metric says this is a bad project. Which explains why I see so much dissension on this project, but explain so little of why the State wants this so much.

I know I already got responses that the State wants this so much because the Fall River/New Bedford are the only two major cities lacking any transit. But given lack (or at least visible) support on the grassroots level, I don't see the political gains. Given the metrics (and the metrics we're using are also the same metrics experts/professionals are using) are so bad, I don't see transit planning logic either. Yet, this is the project that state would actually fight when ecnountering trouble (like when the estimate went up $2bn to $3bn - meanwhile GLX had to be saved by advocates)

The problem with relying on capital cost per daily new transit rider is that to do so, you have to assume the ridership projections are accurate. Often times they're not, and usually by large margins. The Secretary admits as much. Now, the MBTA/MassDOT have to rely on those models because, well, that's the data they have. But we don't have to, and I'm not going to put a ton of stock into capital costs that are calculated using estimates that are created by a flawed model. On this front, we'll see.

That's not to say the project isn't severely flawed. It certainly is. F-Line breaks down the technical faults with SCR repeatedly and he's dead-on accurate as usual.

I'm also not convinced that politics don't play a significant role in all of this. I also disagree that "every governor going back to Weld wanted South Coast Rail." Every administration since Weld has paid lip service to South Coast Rail. It's been a prerequisite for winning over voters from that region for decades. But few administrations have actually done much more than the obligatory "study." Patrick held SCR "groundbreakings" on a handful of freight rail improvement projects, but even he was mostly talk. So there was a lot of pressure on Baker to not be just more of the same. Especially as an R governor in a D state with a rapidly worsening traffic situation and few employment opportunities outside of metro Boston. As a fiscal conservative, he couldn't move the $3 Billion proposal through, but the $1B "Phase 1" alternative made sense politically.

I'm a little perplexed by the whole "no grassroots support" comments. Where are you looking? I mostly grew up on the south coast and commuted to Boston from the region as an adult for years. There's not a week that goes by (for as long as I can remember) where it hasn't been mentioned at political events, covered by the paper, pushed by local C of Cs or organizations like SRPEDD, etc. Maybe the push is far enough outside of the Boston bubble that it doesn't get coverage, but it's there just as much as any other project. I would argue that because of these efforts (and the influence they have on local politicians), the project isn't dead some 30 years later.

It also seems like people forget about Taunton in all of these discussions. Maybe "South Coast Rail" was just branded terribly, but Taunton is the city that gains the most out of this project. At least initially. It's equally as under-served as the South Coast, it's far closer to Boston than FR/NB, and it'll have double the frequencies that FR/NB do.

In a perfect world, "Phase 1" would have been an electrified extension of the Stoughton Branch down to Taunton. Shuttle buses, coordinated with commuter rail arrivals/departures, could have been run from the Taunton station to Fall River/New Bedford for a few years while the state gained real data which they could use to determine whether or not to complete the "Phase 2" electrified extensions to FR/NB.

 

[ant8904]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

I'm a little perplexed by the whole "no grassroots support" comments.

My assessment is based personal readings on news articles, searching on Facebook, and searching on Google for groups. I do admit that it is not very scientific. That is also part of why I openly brought it up here. Not to persuade but to see if the claim gets challenge.

So far, I have to say that perhaps it is bold to say there's no grassroot support, but I think it is safe to say it has the by far least support on the internet and least visibility when checking for news articles covering this. I also think I can safely say no other transit project on this website attract this type of response as seen since I revived this topic. You won't find this for GLX nor even for Commuter Rail to NH nor any other project (if I was to guess the next closest, it is probably when they announced Track 61 - which they quietly killed after they realized how dumb it was).

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

My assessment is based personal readings on news articles, searching on Facebook, and searching on Google for groups. I do admit that it is not very scientific. That is also part of why I openly brought it up here. Not to persuade but to see if the claim gets challenge.

So far, I have to say that perhaps it is bold to say there's no grassroot support, but I think it is safe to say it has the by far least support on the internet and least visibility when checking for news articles covering this. I also think I can safely say no other transit project on this website attract this type of response as seen since I revived this topic. You won't find this for GLX nor even for Commuter Rail to NH nor any other project (if I was to guess the next closest, it is probably when they announced Track 61 - which they quietly killed after they realized how dumb it was).

I'll admit that the enthusiasm for the project isn't as visible or obvious as it is for other projects. It's hard to maintain enthusiasm and energy fighting for something for 30+ years. Many (most) people on the South Coast still don't believe it's ever going to happen. But there is definitely a grassroots push for this that's strong and has been ongoing for a while. You can see it to an extent on facebook here and here. Both of those have gone some time between posts, but I think that speaks to how demoralizing it is to advocate for so long. You also see it in the local blogs/outlets like New Bedford Guide, Fall River Reporter as well as the larger papers like Standard Times, Herald News, Taunton Gazette, etc. But not so much in the Boston papers because the population that stands to gain the most from this is well outside the Boston area (unlike BLX, GLX, etc.).

I've seen it most in the rail meetings I've been to and when local political campaigns are ramping up. You're almost certainly not going to be elected in the region if you don't support the project. It's almost always one of the first topics to come up, and one of the longest discussed. They're all going to "hold Beacon Hill accountable for ignoring Fall River/New Bedford for far too long!"

That's why I think the politics is a big piece of this. We all know it's a flawed project. There's no way a fiscally conservative Governor pushes through an expensive and flawed project unless there's political pressure to do so. There's no political pressure to do so if the people in the South Coast don't put that pressure on their local delegation.

 

[Rover]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

Lrfox, I agree with a lot of it but there's little political benefit to Baker who to his credit is the governor who's actually getting it done. Even if he runs again, and that's a big if, I don't see the south coast as being a political kingmaker in the 2022 elections. Fall River's mayor is under indictment so the only benefit he'll be reaping will be with the parole board by the time the trains start running. Of course South Coast pols have been pushing for it but they've been doing that for 30 years to no avail.

My guess is the economic justice issue is carrying the day, along with the increased focus on improving transit. As in, GLX, BLX, Red-Blue, etc are all worthwhile projects but every infrastructure dollar can't be earmarked towards Boston and its neighbors.

I do completely agree with your assessment that after 30 years residents are most likely doing a wait and see attitude instead of a loud grassroots campaign.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail

My guess is the economic justice issue is carrying the day, along with the increased focus on improving transit. As in, GLX, BLX, Red-Blue, etc are all worthwhile projects but every infrastructure dollar can't be earmarked towards Boston and its neighbors.

This Admin. keeps punting on the slam-dunk ridership forecasts for the Inland Route to Springfield...which even flying under the Amtrak banner would not require 3-hour waits between trains. How again is this a big bad Boston problem again???

The wistful idea of it in some pols' heads about economic justice is not borne out by reality. There will be vanishingly little economic coattails with service so sparse few people can personally or professionally justify taking it. And this project has never EVER answered the question on the Fall River Branch of how buses are going to integrate with the commuter rail while the bus depot is way over at City Hall. There's only one SRTA route that goes to Fall River Depot; it's not even easy to get to the train from within most of the project's own co-host city.

Improve transit??? That is simply a laugher given that Baker was the one governor in a chain of 7 to break the service's back by ramming through the service-impoverished Phase I kludge while all his predecessors were backing a full-service Stoughton build. Yes, none of them funded it. But actually, as of today no one has STILL funded the full-service option, including Baker. But all the other guys and gal took one look at the Middleboro Alt., saw why the scoping study panned it despite the lower cost, and said 'Hell no! I'll get crucified for spending on service no one will ride." It wasn't bravery or commitment to follow-through to choose the stupidest, most broken, most oft-rejected option and run with it.

Now, by direct consequence of breaking the service so badly the ridership projections crashed this Admin. ensured that Phase II never ever has to be built. W00t!...music to the ears of the Admin. that wants to bury very much not- Boston-specific RER. Oh, and by doing it this way the state also broke Buzzards Bay CR and any chance of non-Cape Flyer Hyannis runs in the process. There is no increased focus on improving transit outside of Boston when the kludge routing no other Administration wanted to hold nose and build ended up directly breaking the chances for tolerable frequencies here, any frequencies on the Cape, and apparently is costing us any realistic chance of funding for establishing a link between Eastern MA to Western MA, Central Connecticut, Vermont, and Montreal.


But do go on some more about how Boston is sucking up all the resources from the rest of the state. Or whoever qualifies as "the rest of the state" today in that ever-shifting definition.