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

Rover said:
@ Brattle Loop, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be conceding here as I've repeatedly said that this project is a win-win. Boston area needs workers, South Coast needs access to better paying jobs. It's not about equity or owing anybody anything. It's that the largest population in Eastern Mass currently not served by commuter rail is the South Coast and there's some opportunities there to solve a few of those problems.
Click to expand...

That it's the largest population center in Eastern Mass not served by the CR can be true and irrelevant at the same time. If the service is too poor, because of the limitations inherent in using the Old Colony routing (especially with no plan whatsoever for widening the single-track main), that the population doesn't really use it much, then it doesn't much matter how big the population center is, it'd still be under-utilized. (And may well kill Phase II, and with it any hopes of a proper-capacity SCR schedule and proper Buzzards/Cape service.) More to the point, the size of the population center is absolutely irrelevant when we're talking about cost-per-rider being as high as it's projected here. (At least some of which is probably down to the less-than-robust peak schedule depressing projected ridership.) "Boston needs workers" plus "South Coast needs access to better-paying jobs" (statements so generic as to be effectively unfalsifiable) does not add up to "we must build a rail connection at whatever the cost". Because the cost is considerable, not just in financial terms (though the cost-per-rider based on the state's own projections is very high), but also in terms of what it does (hopefully temporarily, potentially permanently) to other (if smaller) population centers' prospects for service, as well as for the South Coast's accessibility itself.

The ridership projections themselves directly undermines the "Boston needs workers" prong of the argument (and puts a big dent in the "South Coast needs access" one). I'll freely concede that accessibility issues here pose a problem for assessment given that there's probably a decent cohort who live in the South Coast but don't seek employment in Boston because of accessibility, and some who are employed in Boston who don't live on the South Coast for the same reason, but unless you can point to something to indicate they'll shoot ridership through the roof (and, uh, the state can't) you can't count on them as a factor for projecting ridership.

What we're left with is a flawed (potentially permanently flawed) Phase I that still comes with a very-high cost per rider. That number is critically important, because it screams inefficient use of state funds even before you take into account the fact that Phase I also disrupts another potential service expansion that Phase II would not interfere with. The cost inefficiency is why the size of the population center is irrelevant; if other population centers can be more efficiently served (i.e. lower cost per rider) then, economically, those projects are a.) more efficient use of state transportation dollars and b.) implicitly harmed to some degree by money being used (inefficiently) for SCR.

You don't solve the "Boston needs workers" prong or get any kind of a win-win on anything by inefficiently using the transportation budget; if other projects can deliver better cost-per-rider numbers, they're by definition more economically efficient. South Coast is sort-of a winner, in that FR/NB get rail service (though with a fairly high risk of being stuck with permanently-crappier service than under Phase II), Buzzards/Cape are losers, and Boston and the Commonwealth (and its taxpayers) are actually losers in that they get X number of commuters at a very high cost-per-rider where other projects could potentially deliver that same number of workers more cheaply. Which means that the argument for Phase I in particular is not an economic argument, it's a political one about who deserves what. (Phase II I can get onboard with long-term growth and accessibility of the Gateway Cities being sufficient economic justification to the state.)

I'll make clear, I don't have a problem with FR/NB arguing that they deserve transit access. I have an issue with you criticizing discussion of the "deserves transit" line while essentially making that same argument in the same breath. Even Phase II is not immune; there are probably other transit projects with better cost-per-ridership (i.e. proxy for economic efficiency) than Phase II, meaning that it's ultimately a political "deserves" argument for that too (though that fact is largely true of all transit projects to some degree because we don't have unlimited money), but you continue to treat Phase I as if it inherently passes the cost-benefit test while simultaneously criticizing the "deserving" argument that is (in my opinion) the only reason it even has a chance of passing the cost-benefit test. So in long-winded answer to your question, what you're supposed to be conceding is that the benefits fall primarily on the South Coast and the costs fall elsewhere, and to such a degree that criticism of the project is entirely justifiable on those grounds.

Rover said:
Some are advocating for Cape access and that's cool but absent some ridership projections I'm not sure how a much smaller population than the Taunton/FR/NB triangle would send more potential commuters into Boston not to mention whatever is going on with the Corps operating the bridge over the Canal. Regardless this project is nearing completion while many others haven't gotten off the drawing board yet so I don't think SCR is holding anything else up.
Click to expand...

Obviously the lack of ridership projections makes life difficult when it comes to comparing projects. I should say I don't necessarily think it's likely that Buzzards/Cape would have higher ridership than FR/NB (because the population differential cuts against that), just that it's possible for that phenomenon to happen (and in this case, it might well happen seasonally given the Cape's heavy tourist skew). Cape service proper has to solve the Corps' who-knows-what with the canal bridge (someone, possibly F-Line, speculated they might just want to sell the dang thing and are annoying the state to get them to pay for it), Buzzards Bay service doesn't touch the bridge and does not depend on cutting through any Corps shenanigans. As for SCR holding things up, it's unambiguously holding up even consideration of Buzzards Bay service, because there's not enough spare capacity on the Old Colony main with SCR coming to provide an acceptable schedule to Buzzards. They were justifiably outraged by the state's greenlighting of Phase I because they knew it killed their chances of service at least for a while. Broader-picture, Phase I's inefficient use of money is a drain on all other projects by spending an outsize chunk of the transportation budget; even if we can't necessarily trace specific project delays or cancellations to it does not mean it was harmless to other projects.
 
The ridership projections have been provided for both South Coast Rail Phase 1 and an extension of commuter rail service to Buzzards Bay or to Bourne.
.
Table 2-9 on page 2-66 of the linked SCR phase 1 report shows an incremental increase of 2030 (I assume daily) inbound boardings along the Middleborough Route of 1,500 (4,400 Phase 1 versus 2,900 No Action).

Section 3.3.2 on page 38 of the linked Cape Rail Study report shows the Alternative 1 (service to Buzzards Bay, north of the canal) would result in an increase of 1,710 daily commuter rail boardings. These are daily boardings, so that figure should be cut in half for inbound versus outbound, resulting in 855 one-way passengers, resulting in more than half the count for SCR phase 1, at one tenth the cost.

I'm not arguing against South Coast Rail. It should be restored, via the Stoughton route. But based on SCR phase 1 versus Cape Rail Study cost per passenger, Buzzards Bay rail should clearly be the priority.
 
OldColony said:
The ridership projections have been provided for both South Coast Rail Phase 1 and an extension of commuter rail service to Buzzards Bay or to Bourne.
.
Table 2-9 on page 2-66 of the linked SCR phase 1 report shows an incremental increase of 2030 (I assume daily) inbound boardings along the Middleborough Route of 1,500 (4,400 Phase 1 versus 2,900 No Action).

Section 3.3.2 on page 38 of the linked Cape Rail Study report shows the Alternative 1 (service to Buzzards Bay, north of the canal) would result in an increase of 1,710 daily commuter rail boardings. These are daily boardings, so that figure should be cut in half for inbound versus outbound, resulting in 855 one-way passengers, resulting in more than half the count for SCR phase 1, at one tenth the cost.

I'm not arguing against South Coast Rail. It should be restored, via the Stoughton route. But based on SCR phase 1 versus Cape Rail Study cost per passenger, Buzzards Bay rail should clearly be the priority.
Click to expand...

Thank you for finding those numbers, it's extremely helpful to the discussion.

It's not even the cost-per-rider problem with SCR Phase I that really galls me (though I don't like that element very much), it's the fact that Phase I precludes meaningful service to Buzzards Bay at all by vacuuming most of the remaining peak-schedule capacity of the Old Colony main trunk. If it was just the money (which is essentially true of an un-Corps of Engineers-mangled Phase II, albeit with an improved schedule that probably helps on the ridership end of the cost-per-ridership) I'd be far less annoyed than I am by the fact that Buzzards is screwed over by the state doing SCR the wrong way with Phase I. I could get behind an argument that high cost-per-rider is acceptable in order to jumpstart transit to a transit-deprived (and needing economic growth, investment, and access) area of the state, but not when it means that a more economically-efficient project is physically compromised, especially when there's a better alternative available if only the state could at least be bothered to try. We don't have to choose between SCR and Buzzards/Cape, but by not pursuing Phase II as the first plan, the state is choosing by default to prioritize one over the other unnecessarily (and in such a way that may well make it politically harder to undo that unforced error).
 
@ Brattle, I'm enjoying the discussion but can you maybe try to keep it to a short story next time instead of a novel? ;)

But I'll try to pick out the relevant stuff. You're stuck on the idea that there's not unlimited transit dollars and that's a reason to oppose the project because there won't be funding left for other, more worthy in your opinion, projects. That's false. Yes, there isn't unlimited funding but this project isn't causing everything else to dry up. I believe it was part of an 18bn bond bill. The state's budget is 45bn a year, and the state is getting 10bn extra from the feds. SCR phase I is a 1bn project over an almost 10 year construction window.

Regarding the notion the South Coast wins while everyone else is stuck with the costs, ALL public transit works that way as the MBTA is not a moneymaking or even break even enterprise. I doubt the Cape rail project would pay for itself either if that's the standard we're using...

Finally if the Buzzards Bay crowd feels like they're getting hosed, let them get together and advocate for themselves. They could even partner with the South Coast to push for phase II as that would be mutually beneficial. But that project seems like it's got a few more kinks to work out, particularly how often the Corps are going to allow them to use the railroad bridge. Until that's sorted out, there's no reason to delay other projects benefitted more people. I'm sorry if that's gotten you worked up but they've got more work to do. Meantime SCR is nearing completion.
 
Rover said:
@ Brattle, I'm enjoying the discussion but can you maybe try to keep it to a short story next time instead of a novel? ;)
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not a teacher or professor, there won't be a book report or an essay question, feel free to skim if you like 😀

Rover said:
But I'll try to pick out the relevant stuff. You're stuck on the idea that there's not unlimited transit dollars and that's a reason to oppose the project because there won't be funding left for other, more worthy in your opinion, projects. That's false. Yes, there isn't unlimited funding but this project isn't causing everything else to dry up. I believe it was part of an 18bn bond bill. The state's budget is 45bn a year, and the state is getting 10bn extra from the feds. SCR phase I is a 1bn project over an almost 10 year construction window.

Regarding the notion the South Coast wins while everyone else is stuck with the costs, ALL public transit works that way as the MBTA is not a moneymaking or even break even enterprise. I doubt the Cape rail project would pay for itself either if that's the standard we're using...
Click to expand...

I assume you were reading a different, fictional novel when you got that impression about what I was saying. I was making an argument, in the SCR context but not inherently SCR-related, that inefficient use of transportation money (represented by high cost-per-rider, SCR Phase I's cost-per-rider is quite high) is a bad thing, not because it's unaffordable in a vacuum or because it somehow sucks up all transportation money in the state for an indefinite time, but because it is wasteful. (And harmful to other projects...including Phase II, potentially.) We obviously don't have the numbers to make a firm determination, but I strongly suspect that a Phase II-only build (with Army Corps' mangling removed, anyway) with its inherently-better schedule potential could well have a better (or at least equivalent) cost-per-rider even if it costs more in a vacuum than Phase I-only, which would be a more efficient use of money. It's not about specific dollars, it's about how well they're used. (Because if, hypothetically, and I'm making these numbers up for argument's sake, if Cape Rail could get riders for $10 a rider and SCR Phase I cost $30 a rider, that's a big difference that needs to be justified somehow, especially if Phase II was $15 a rider. That's the limited-budget element; the state ought to get the most for its money.)

Rover said:
Finally if the Buzzards Bay crowd feels like they're getting hosed, let them get together and advocate for themselves. They could even partner with the South Coast to push for phase II as that would be mutually beneficial. But that project seems like it's got a few more kinks to work out, particularly how often the Corps are going to allow them to use the railroad bridge. Until that's sorted out, there's no reason to delay other projects benefitted more people. I'm sorry if that's gotten you worked up but they've got more work to do. Meantime SCR is nearing completion.
Click to expand...

Buzzards (which was not Cape-dependent and has no kinks related to the bridge to work out, was already advocating for its service. Baker & Company chose to ignore them in favor of a political gift to the South Coast in characteristic cheap-and-flawed form. Again, while I don't like that Buzzards got screwed by Phase I, I don't inherently mind its existence (it does get service to FR/NB faster) but I do not trust this administration to build Phase II, and worry that Phase I was designed to fail to get them off the hook for that cost, and if that is the case (either intentionally flawed or simply not useful enough to justify Phase II) then Buzzards doesn't get the room to advocate for service, because it would be physically impossible without either removing (some) SCR service or a potential megaproject-scale full double-tracking of the Old Colony main line.

TL;DR version: I think the state's doing SCR the cheap, inefficient way that risks compromising doing it the right way that keeps it from screwing over Buzzards Bay, the Cape, full FR/NB service, and the state's taxpayers, and I don't much like that fact, even if it does mean faster service to FR/NB than if Phase II was the only build.
 
Rover said:
Finally if the Buzzards Bay crowd feels like they're getting hosed, let them get together and advocate for themselves.
Click to expand...

They have been advocating for themselves for quite some time now, and yet they are still getting screwed over due to the lack of capacity on the Old Colony Mainline (exacerbated by SCR Phase I). According to the Cape Rail Study, the vast majority of service to/from Buzzards Bay or Bourne would be a shuttle train going between Middleborough and the Cape, as the Old Colony Mainline will basically be maxed-out on capacity once SCR Phase I comes online.

No amount of "advocating for themselves" is going to change the fact that Cape Rail's future is entirely dependent on SCR Phase II, or the Old Colony Mainline being double-tracked in entirety.

Rover said:
But that project seems like it's got a few more kinks to work out, particularly how often the Corps are going to allow them to use the railroad bridge. Until that's sorted out, there's no reason to delay other projects benefitted more people. I'm sorry if that's gotten you worked up but they've got more work to do.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Cape Rail is a pretty straightforward project. The uncertainty regarding usage of the bridge is pretty much the only "kink" to work out, and that would only be if the extension went beyond Buzzards Bay.
 
If the army corps is as villainous as portrayed in this thread, I think bridge usage is a pretty major kink to work out. Again though, it sounds like the Cape and the South Coast should work as one to get Phase II built for both of their benefits. Regarding Baker, I'm guessing this all plays out after he's retired but he seems have to a decent track record of getting some stuff built (GLX, SCR) so perhaps he'll surprise you if he goes for another term.
 
Rover said:
Again though, it sounds like the Cape and the South Coast should work as one to get Phase II built for both of their benefits.
Click to expand...

First of all, that assumes that FR/NB care a.) what happens to Buzzards/Cape (who by definition are not their political constituency) and b.) care if SCR works well, as opposed to whether it exists at all. (The politicians will all show up at the groundbreakings/station openings/first service runs. How many of them are really going to care if the schedule's good? I don't know, but it's a good bet not as many as who want the photo op.) Saying they should all work together is all well and good, but the incentive structure is way different between the South Coast who's getting service either way and thus has far less reason to care (cynically speaking) than Buzzards who can't have meaningful service as long as Phase I is operating. Doesn't mean they shouldn't collaborate as much as possible, but it's cold comfort to ask Buzzards to go begging FR/NB to help them out, when they're the ones whose service is screwing Buzzards in the first place.

Rover said:
Regarding Baker, I'm guessing this all plays out after he's retired but he seems have to a decent track record of getting some stuff built (GLX, SCR) so perhaps he'll surprise you if he goes for another term.
Click to expand...

Baker's track record is thin on things that are actually praiseworthy. The GLX contract was one of the few, because that was bloated all to hell. Even there, negotiating tactic or no, he at least credibly threatened to kill a much-needed, highly-desired transit project that had been in discussion in one form or another for something like seventy years. Sure, if that was a bluff I'm good with it, but if he had actually killed it if the costs hadn't come down it'd probably be another twenty years of waiting, which is a pretty big price to pay to save some money. And not everything that got cut was a good idea; as I recall they cut down the stations (which is defensible) but frakked up fare control when they did, because now they don't have FVMs but also have island platforms (meaning boarding away from the fareboxes). They were probably counting on AFC 2.0 to fix that problem, but that's late as hell too (which was predictable), meaning their unforced error has no solution beyond clunky kludges in the interim period until Cubic gets its act together on the new fare system.

Beyond that, Baker & Company have repeatedly sandbagged useful projects (East-West Rail, NSRL, both with sloppily-bogus studies, and, most egregiously, Red-Blue, again by fudging with the studies) for no apparent reason other than not wanting to spend the money. SCR is an exception, but not a praiseworthy one. The vitriol around Phase I is explicitly because it is the cheap, lousy way to do SCR, with a high risk (possibly intentionally; see as before the pattern of sandbagging and screwing with studies to kill unwanted-expense projects) of killing Phase II dead for two decades, and taking Buzzards with it. If his retirement, whenever it may be, brings with it an end to the cheapskatery that means killing useful projects and doing other ones badly, then it can't come soon enough for me.
 
Thanks for this weekend's posts regarding South Coast Rail and Buzzards Bay rail. I appreciate those who have made an effort to review the recently linked documents for both SCR phase 1 and "Cape Rail," particularly around details for a terminus for "Cape" service at Buzzards Bay, versus a terminus at a Bourne station on the Cape which would need frequent canal bridge movements, requiring cooperation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Thoughtful posts this past 24 hours have called out that difference.

Rover said:
Again though, it sounds like the Cape and the South Coast should work as one to get Phase II built for both of their benefits.
Click to expand...

On September 12th, 2016, Rep. William M. Straus, who represents Fairhaven, Mattapoisett, Rochester, Marion and portions of New Bedford, presented a dog and pony show in Buzzards Bay village and town of Wareham to advocate for SCR phase 1, claiming it would help Wareham and Bourne's effort to restore commuter rail service to the canal. To the (likely naive) credit of Wareham and Bourne officials, they in turn provided their support for SCR phase 1.

Clearly Wareham and Bourne have done their part to advocate for SCR, as well as Buzzards Bay rail.

I now look forward to Straus' and other South Coast Rail phase 1 advocates to vocally support a Buzzards Bay shuttle. Not holding my breath.
 
OldColony said:
particularly around details for a terminus for "Cape" service at Buzzards Bay, versus a terminus at a Bourne station on the Cape which would need frequent canal bridge movements, requiring cooperation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Click to expand...

IMO it doesn't really make sense to extend service past Buzzards Bay over the bridge unless it's going all the way to Hyannis. Service to Hyannis was not included as part of the study, here's their reasoning for omitting it:

hyannis.PNG

(page 26)


Here's another snippet from the study regarding the impact of South Coast Rail Phase I and the constrained Old Colony Mainline on Cape Rail, plus some other info about track conditions on the Middleboro Main Line and the Cape Main Line:
track and right of way.PNG

(page 18)
 
I went digging through the Stoughton Alternative EIS and found the Pine Swamp Trestle Memorandum, similar to the Hockomock Trestle Memorandum. Constructing a single track trestle through Pine swamp (similar to the proposed trestle through Hockomock swamp) was considered but ultimately rejected back in 2013.
pine swamp trestle.PNG

The document compares Pine swamp to Hockomock swamp with regards to their environmental sensitivity, and explains as to why they felt a trestle through Hockomock swamp was necessary but one through Pine swamp was not.
Pine Swamp is a small (relative to the Hockomock) wetland ecosystem that is not recognized as an ACEC or Important Bird Area. It does not have extensive vernal pool complexes adjacent to the existing elevated embankment or track bed, and does not support state-listed salamanders or turtles. The only state-listed species present is a butterfly (Hessel’s hairstreak). The area immediately adjacent to the existing embankment is a power line where invasive species (Phragmites) have become established.
Click to expand...

It is useful to compare Pine Swamp with the Hockomock Swamp to establish the justification for the extraordinary expense of an elevated trestle structure, at more than ten times the cost of at-grade rail. The South Coast Rail Project includes a 1.8-mile trestle through the Hockomock Swamp. The decision to elevate the track in the Hockomock Swamp was based on discussions with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program staff during the prior MEPA process, and was an important mitigation commitment made in the 2002 FEIR and upheld by MassDOT in the current design for impacts on state-listed rare species.
Click to expand...

The trestle through Pine swamp was proposed to cost $50 million, as opposed to the $5 million cost of rehabilitating the existing embankment.
 
While researching the project history, I came across the 2009 corridor plan. It called for substantial mixed-use (re}development around basically every station save Battleship Cove (and Easton Village, which would have adaptive reuse of the historic buildings). And I mean substantial - here's what would replace a storage facility and trees in Freetown...
1641189995168.png

and replacing a strip mall and light industrial at Kings Highway (now Church Street):
1641190079217.png


While there certainly are arguments to be had about the greenfield development at Freetown, and whether the service would really support enough TOD to allow low/no-car living, it was certainly an ambitious plan. It's also why the ridership projections at that time (especially before the Army Corps fucked over the FEIR) were so rosy: the project was supposed to be more than just parking lots on dead-end streets and behind strip malls.
 
And on that depressing note, here are my photos of construction progress.

Middleborough:
1641193938160.png


Church Street:
1641193983779.png


Fall River:
1641194013795.png

1641194027109.png

1641194035690.png


New Bedford had no visible construction progress, the access road to East Taunton is behind a locked gate, and I sadly didn't have time to see Freetown.

Bonus: the old Lakeville station on Route 18, last used for rail service in 1931, was recently restored - and I saw a Facebook post indicating that a railfan has rented it.
1641194139650.png
 
OldColony said:
More depressing is the fact that daily commuter rail service is being removed from the existing Middleborough/Lakeville station to accommodate SCR phase 1. Hundreds of residential units were built near the station since it opened in 1997 (Sterling Place Apartments and Kensington Court Apartments). So much for claims the state is committed to transit oriented development.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree with you that through some lenses, this is not a good look for the state. As a developer, it would be in the back of my mind if I was considering a TOD proposal somewhere outside of the urban core. If I was a commuter living in either of those apartments, I'd be peeved too. The walk to the new location along 105 (past several on/off ramps) isn't exactly a pleasant one.

But I think the new location is generally a better one than the original. It's much better connected (fairly easy walk) to Middleborough Center which has pretty solid town center bones. And while you are moving further from Sterling Place and Kensington Court, there's a lot of existing residential development and reasonably good density within walking distance of the new location. It's really ideal for both people driving to the station (right off of 495) and walking from the densest part of the area (Middleborough Center).

And while I don't love the move away from Kensington Court and Sterling Place, those two developments were never the commuter hubs that they were advertised to be. For this region of the state, they're rare rentals outside of the bigger cities (FR, NB, Taunton) in a "safe" town with a good school district. They're largely sought after by families who live/work in the area and can't afford to buy a home. It's extremely hard to build rental units like these in a town like Lakeville and the station ("TOD!") was certainly the catalyst. But the market for rentals in these suburban communities is underserved and it's not all (or even mostly) Boston commuters snapping them up. I'm certain there are some commuters living there, but I rarely saw people walking over when I was regularly taking peak trains from Middleborough/Lakeville.
 
There's also not much walkable from those apartments - you still need a car to get groceries, go to the downtown shops, etc.
 
The EGE said:
There's also not much walkable from those apartments - you still need a car to get groceries, go to the downtown shops, etc.
Click to expand...
I mean you do have Baldie's and Marylou's... what else do you need?!

I think the reality for "TOD" this far out of Boston (or any real urban center) is that most people will still use cars for much of their day to day. The big change will be not requiring a car for any part of the work commute (which is still a win). Having a grocery store and several other amenities (particularly entertainment) within walking distance is a plus. It's probably not true TOD, but that's what I think it looks like this far out. The new location checks most of those boxes. There are plenty of single family homes within walking distance to the station and a downtown with a handful of bars, shops, and restaurants easily accessible on foot. Technically you have a supermarket within a 20 or so minute walk from much of the Center, but getting to Hannaford is not a safe or enjoyable pedestrian experience. Most will opt to drive. Hopefully the new station location will trigger some development in Middleborough Center that will make it easier for residents to leave the car parked. But culturally, I don't know that this is the type of place that's going to embrace that change. It is pickup truck country after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top