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

Question - Have any efforts been made to plan for an extension of South Coast Rail from Fall River to Newport, RI and safeguard the ROW that such an extension would require? I was able to find an article explaining why the project would be a good idea, but the only official plan it cited was from the 90s. Obviously, the most expensive hurdle would be replacing the bridge. Hopefully, a federal grant could help with that. The station in Newport could get pricey if they go too fancy with it, but ideally you'd just keep it to a platform with some shelters. The rest of the project seems like it would be very straightforward track replacement. Maybe you'd need some crossing gates too.

Newport is comparable to Cape Cod as a summer destination. If the Cape Flyer is anything to go by, such a project would be a huge success. And unlike the Cape, Newport is a decently-sized city in its own right with a compact and walkable core. Year-round intercity service to Boston could therefore be compared to the Downeaster as well, which is one of Amtrak's most successful expansions of the past 20-30 years. The tracks also end right at Newport's main bus station and one block away from the Block Island ferry dock, so the intermodal connections would be great. Finally, if Rhode Island passed something like IRAP, it could also support the reactivation of freight service to industries on Aquidneck Island.

All in all, seems like a mega-win if the bridge can be figured out!

On the political/policy side, I can see an argument that MA needs to finish SCR Phase II before anything can happen due to otherwise-uncompetitive trip times, but I think there is also an argument that a committment from RI to work on a Newport extension could come first and be part of the argument for actually doing Phase II - it would add riders and bring down the per-rider cost of the project. Planning for the bridge in particular can't come soon enough given my hunch that the timeline on that would be at least 5+ years.
 
michaelw37 said:
Question - Have any efforts been made to plan for an extension of South Coast Rail from Fall River to Newport, RI and safeguard the ROW that such an extension would require? I was able to find an article explaining why the project would be a good idea, but the only official plan it cited was from the 90s. Obviously, the most expensive hurdle would be replacing the bridge. Hopefully, a federal grant could help with that. The station in Newport could get pricey if they go too fancy with it, but ideally you'd just keep it to a platform with some shelters. The rest of the project seems like it would be very straightforward track replacement. Maybe you'd need some crossing gates too.

Newport is comparable to Cape Cod as a summer destination. If the Cape Flyer is anything to go by, such a project would be a huge success. And unlike the Cape, Newport is a decently-sized city in its own right with a compact and walkable core. Year-round intercity service to Boston could therefore be compared to the Downeaster as well, which is one of Amtrak's most successful expansions of the past 20-30 years. The tracks also end right at Newport's main bus station and one block away from the Block Island ferry dock, so the intermodal connections would be great. Finally, if Rhode Island passed something like IRAP, it could also support the reactivation of freight service to industries on Aquidneck Island.

All in all, seems like a mega-win if the bridge can be figured out!

On the political/policy side, I can see an argument that MA needs to finish SCR Phase II before anything can happen due to otherwise-uncompetitive trip times, but I think there is also an argument that a committment from RI to work on a Newport extension could come first and be part of the argument for actually doing Phase II - it would add riders and bring down the per-rider cost of the project. Planning for the bridge in particular can't come soon enough given my hunch that the timeline on that would be at least 5+ years.
Click to expand...
I don't think you'd ever see regular CR service down there; it's just too long. But an in-season "Newport Flyer" with RIDOT support for the out-of-district running miles is definitely a good possibility.

Right now the ROW south of the Port of Fall River turnout is out-of-service. But there are plans for a freight reactivation to the state line so that a big local customer, Gold Medal Bakery, who currently transload at the port can start receiving flour hoppers at their home siding at their big Bay St. factory not used since the mid-1990's. There's also a barge transload dock next to Gold Medal's plant with an owner that wants to load barged goods like municipal road salt onto railcars. The reactivation plan has formal grant applications filed by Mass Coastal RR that have been passed over on a couple previous rounds of funding, but they are still pending so this is very likely to happen...so the line in MA will be secure long-term.

In Tiverton, RI the line is considered likewise "out-of-service"/non-abandoned (including the missing bridge). RIDOT (line owner) has quid pro quos with Providence & Worcester RR (the operator) to keep the freight rights "active" to the Naval base, even though there hasn't been any activity to the base since 1988 (and P&W outsourced the work to Conrail rather than roam themselves so far from home to their remote Newport territory). That allows the state to keep the trail lobbies at-bay and allows for a simple reactivation to full operating status with 3 months' notice to abutters, no public input, and no legal challenges. The only things subject to negotiation would be any upgrades planned to the line beyond its former minimal Class 1/10 MPH operating standard. That quid pro quo between state and P&W is crucial for bypassing the abutter NIMBY's. While the tracks are still in the ground, 35 years of inactivity means the physical plant would have to be built from scratch on 2.7 miles of state-owned track. One missing road overpass would have to be replaced, and then the Sakonnet River bridge would have to be replaced. The river channel is only 365 feet at the rail crossing, so it wouldn't be a particularly big movable bridge that would need to be built. An appropriate comparison would be the new Gloucester Drawbridge on the Rockport Line...about half the length of Sakonnet, but double the tracks and double the moving spans. RIDOT is continuing to slowly upgrade the tracks on Aquidneck Island for the tourist train, and has aims on eventually getting it up-to-spec for running an RDC shuttle on-island during tourist season at much-expanded schedules from the current tourist train. They've stated in their State Rail Plan that they are interested in studying some sort of service from Fall River once SCR is settled. So while there are some cost hurdles for rebuilding the bridge and Tiverton trackage, the interest is definitely there and the have the legal wherewithal to steamroll any NIMBY opposition.
 
I've often wondered why the extension/reactivation to Gold Medal has yet to happen? What becomes of the IRAP money allocated for it? MDOT ran a brush cutter down
there when it was announced, but nothing since. Wonder how powerful the marina/condo people are (since they got their backs up when this was announced)?

And down at Tiverton, there are houses built close to the track (Riverside Drive) with boats stored on the ROW.
 

1023_newbed-rail-03.jpeg
​

https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/11/02/new-bedford-south-coast-rail-mbta
 
Teban54 said:
The concerns about slow speed and lack of trips (due to the Phase 1 alignment) definitely deserve more attention.

But I have to say, I'm tired of people bringing up gentrification every time a transit project is done. I can see why people are concerned, but do they really prefer the alternative of having lackluster or no transit access?
Click to expand...
"We should improve society"

but gentrification!
 
Teban54 said:
The concerns about slow speed and lack of trips (due to the Phase 1 alignment) definitely deserve more attention.

But I have to say, I'm tired of people bringing up gentrification every time a transit project is done. I can see why people are concerned, but do they really prefer the alternative of having lackluster or no transit access?
Click to expand...
I’m originally from the South Coast and following the local reaction to the project has been fun. Among other silly concerns, people seem to believe that SCR will simultaneously bring in “undesirables” who will ruin FR/NB with drugs AND lure in all of the wealthy people from Boston who will drive real estate prices (and taxes) up and push the locals out.

Meanwhile, the slow travel time and limited number of trips are the real issues that don’t seem to get much attention. I sure hope the political will is there to make sure Phase 2 happens.
 
Lrfox said:
I’m originally from the South Coast and following the local reaction to the project has been fun. Among other silly concerns, people seem to believe that SCR will simultaneously bring in “undesirables” who will ruin FR/NB with drugs AND lure in all of the wealthy people from Boston who will drive real estate prices (and taxes) up and push the locals out.

Meanwhile, the slow travel time and limited number of trips are the real issues that don’t seem to get much attention. I sure hope the political will is there to make sure Phase 2 happens.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the point of building a bunch of low ridership rail that still has third world country infrastructure (single track, single platform, diesel run, surrounded by a sea of parking rather than in a town center)? Like I know the projected ridership/headways will be low enough that a single platform/track is all you need, but given that I can think of a thousand projects that will benefit more people for a similar cost. Like electrification out to 128 and fixing the old colony pinch.
 
Why do people think that third world has worse passenger rail infrastructure OR public transport than USA? It might be not as safe, but it does exist, and covers more of the population.
There are a lot of things that the third world has to catch up in, but public transport might not be one of them?
 
malabari said:
Why do people think that third world has worse passenger rail infrastructure OR public transport than USA? It might be not as safe, but it does exist, and covers more of the population.
There are a lot of things that the third world has to catch up in, but public transport might not be one of them?
Click to expand...
Because colloquially, "third-world" just means terrible to most people. The fact that the actual third world tends to have better passenger rail coverage than most of the USA is a damning indictment on the state of passenger rail in this country.
 
sneijder said:
What exactly is the point of building a bunch of low ridership rail that still has third world country infrastructure (single track, single platform, diesel run, surrounded by a sea of parking rather than in a town center)? Like I know the projected ridership/headways will be low enough that a single platform/track is all you need, but given that I can think of a thousand projects that will benefit more people for a similar cost. Like electrification out to 128 and fixing the old colony pinch.
Click to expand...

Raise rents.
 
roy_mustang76 said:
Because colloquially, "third-world" just means terrible to most people. The fact that the actual third world tends to have better passenger rail coverage than most of the USA is a damning indictment on the state of passenger rail in this country.
Click to expand...
Yes. India is electrifying its entire rail network. Massachusetts (and the rest of the US) isn't anywhere near accomplishing that.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Yes. India is electrifying its entire rail network. Massachusetts (and the rest of the US) isn't anywhere near accomplishing that.
Click to expand...

That rather depends on your metric - the US has the best highway and domestic air travel systems in the world, we've just decided those are evil after we achieved them.
 
Equilibria said:
That rather depends on your metric - the US has the best highway and domestic air travel systems in the world, we've just decided those are evil after we achieved them.
Click to expand...
I'd argue we have the most extensive highway system, not the "best" highway system. We've built it out so incredibly extensively and made it the primary thing to use for transportation in most places without really considering how the upkeep of them would be funded resulting in a state of disrepair putting a large quantity of the system in the same realm as a so-called "third world country." They were considered evil by the majority of citizens before their existence and then were subsidized and propagandized to the point of the majority thinking they're the greatest thing.

sneijder said:
What exactly is the point of building a bunch of low ridership rail that still has third world country infrastructure (single track, single platform, diesel run, surrounded by a sea of parking rather than in a town center)? Like I know the projected ridership/headways will be low enough that a single platform/track is all you need, but given that I can think of a thousand projects that will benefit more people for a similar cost. Like electrification out to 128 and fixing the old colony pinch.
Click to expand...
These two cities are the 9th and 10th largest cities in the state and have in particular been largely neglected for decades of economic development. I see this as partially a topic of justice for these communities to get the return of rail service to the economic hub of the state. The parking is largely the result of the mistake of downtown freeway development demolishing where the railway used to interface with downtown. The parking lot already exists and I'd imagine it'd be redeveloped in the coming years with the establishment of better service to the city because for some reason there isn't a lot of future thinking in the US, only deciding what to do based on the current environment.

The reality of the situation is that an extension to a new (but in actuality old) service area is much more enticing for people and politicians than upgrading existing infrastructure. In this specific case, I'd argue that bringing rail service to such large population centers ASAP is a better prioritization over some electrification or overall Old Colony service frequency in order to demonstrate current demand to the powers that be. With how things currently stand, even the Foxboro pilot exceeded ridership projections and I'd expect these cities combined with the housing crisis to do so as well. This project doing well could be a catalyst to further along Phase II plans.

Teban54 said:
The concerns about slow speed and lack of trips (due to the Phase 1 alignment) definitely deserve more attention.
Click to expand...
In the case of the travel times, they're expected to be 90min from the termini to South Station, which is comparable to the Fitchburg Line and Worcester Local, and those trains still saw about 400 and 1300 (I know express ridership is probably the majority of this) riders daily back in 2018 when schedules weren't as clockface. These new branches will uniquely have direct access to jobs in Dorchester and Brockton which could be a draw for individuals. This makes the line's short-term configuration potentially even more useful to riders as this travel time would be less than the end-to-end 90 minutes. The lack of trips is concerning but seemingly a constraint of available equipment and the obvious Quincy single tracking.


None of this is meant to be a criticism as these are very valid concerns that should be addressed and discussed, I just like to bring an optimistic outlook or positivity to anything I can.
 
Equilibria said:
That rather depends on your metric - the US has the best highway and domestic air travel systems in the world, we've just decided those are evil after we achieved them.
Click to expand...
Very few people in the US are condemning the highway system as a whole, just relooking at some problematic segments from the highway building feeding frenzy of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, especially in some key urban locations. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the chief initiator and proponent of the Interstate Highway System, was appalled when he was shown plans for proposed Interstate highways slicing through the hearts of major cities.
 
Koopzilla24 said:
These two cities are the 9th and 10th largest cities in the state and have in particular been largely neglected for decades of economic development. I see this as partially a topic of justice for these communities to get the return of rail service to the economic hub of the state. The parking is largely the result of the mistake of downtown freeway development demolishing where the railway used to interface with downtown. The parking lot already exists and I'd imagine it'd be redeveloped in the coming years with the establishment of better service to the city because for some reason there isn't a lot of future thinking in the US, only deciding what to do based on the current environment.

The reality of the situation is that an extension to a new (but in actuality old) service area is much more enticing for people and politicians than upgrading existing infrastructure. In this specific case, I'd argue that bringing rail service to such large population centers ASAP is a better prioritization over some electrification or overall Old Colony service frequency in order to demonstrate current demand to the powers that be. With how things currently stand, even the Foxboro pilot exceeded ridership projections and I'd expect these cities combined with the housing crisis to do so as well. This project doing well could be a catalyst to further along Phase II plans.


In the case of the travel times, they're expected to be 90min from the termini to South Station, which is comparable to the Fitchburg Line and Worcester Local, and those trains still saw about 400 and 1300 (I know express ridership is probably the majority of this) riders daily back in 2018 when schedules weren't as clockface. These new branches will uniquely have direct access to jobs in Dorchester and Brockton which could be a draw for individuals. This makes the line's short-term configuration potentially even more useful to riders as this travel time would be less than the end-to-end 90 minutes. The lack of trips is concerning but seemingly a constraint of available equipment and the obvious Quincy single tracking.


None of this is meant to be a criticism as these are very valid concerns that should be addressed and discussed, I just like to bring an optimistic outlook or positivity to anything I can.
Click to expand...
The main concern about SCR Phase 1 is that if its ridership tanks - possibly even lower than projections when the project started, and there's a significant chance it might - it may kill the much-needed Phase 2 outright. Politically speaking, when a project is not doing well (especially one that's not seen as crucial or a priority), people generally don't pour even more money into it.

I did an estimate of likely frequencies for each branch here on Reddit. TL;DR: One train every 2-2.5 hours in peak direction. To me, that's a much bigger issue than travel time, whether you're commuting to Boston, Dorchester or Brockton. Not to mention that Fall River and New Bedford don't get equal access - if one city gets a good time slot, the other is either 1 hour too early or 1 hour too late.

Such an outcome would be the antithesis of justice for Fall River and New Bedford. I hope it doesn't happen, but...
 
Charlie_mta said:
Very few people in the US are condemning the highway system as a whole, just relooking at some problematic segments from the highway building feeding frenzy of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, especially in some key urban locations. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the chief initiator and proponent of the Interstate Highway System, was appalled when he was shown plans for proposed Interstate highways slicing through the hearts of major cities.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's consistent with the "no funding for highways at all" theme we hear a lot on here.

Koopzilla24 said:
I'd argue we have the most extensive highway system, not the "best" highway system. We've built it out so incredibly extensively and made it the primary thing to use for transportation in most places without really considering how the upkeep of them would be funded resulting in a state of disrepair putting a large quantity of the system in the same realm as a so-called "third world country." They were considered evil by the majority of citizens before their existence and then were subsidized and propagandized to the point of the majority thinking they're the greatest thing.
Click to expand...

It's the best. In 2023, approximately 4% of National Highway System bridges by size were in poor condition (it's higher in MA). Similarly, the last time it was measured, the one measure of pavement quality collected large-scale by FHWA had the same 4% of Interstates in poor condition. As a high-level statement, 96% of the major highways in the US are in fair or better condition at the moment. Given (as you point out) the breadth of the system and its age, I don't think that's awful. Other countries may have much smaller systems that are in better condition by some metrics, but the breadth of the system - the way it opens up every corner of the country to economic opportunity - is unmatched in the world.

And I think you kind of made the same point I did: for decades the US considered the system it was building to be the ideal solution. Whether you consider that "propaganda" (and outside of a few GM ads I think I struggle to see it that way), it was backed up by facts: the US economy and internal infrastructure for the movement of goods produced the strongest economy in the history of humans. Highways were definitely not seen as "evil by the majority of citizens" - some specific urban freeways maybe, but not the Interstate System generally.

There are very real negative externalities of highways, but the propaganda today runs the other direction, and it has convinced a relatively small number of mostly city-dewlling Americans that the system they've invested in and depended upon for seven decades is now an evil mistake.
 
Equilibria said:
I don't think that's consistent with the "no funding for highways at all" theme we hear a lot on here.



It's the best. In 2023, approximately 4% of National Highway System bridges by size were in poor condition (it's higher in MA). Similarly, the last time it was measured, the one measure of pavement quality collected large-scale by FHWA had the same 4% of Interstates in poor condition. As a high-level statement, 96% of the major highways in the US are in fair or better condition at the moment. Given (as you point out) the breadth of the system and its age, I don't think that's awful. Other countries may have much smaller systems that are in better condition by some metrics, but the breadth of the system - the way it opens up every corner of the country to economic opportunity - is unmatched in the world.

And I think you kind of made the same point I did: for decades the US considered the system it was building to be the ideal solution. Whether you consider that "propaganda" (and outside of a few GM ads I think I struggle to see it that way), it was backed up by facts: the US economy and internal infrastructure for the movement of goods produced the strongest economy in the history of humans. Highways were definitely not seen as "evil by the majority of citizens" - some specific urban freeways maybe, but not the Interstate System generally.

There are very real negative externalities of highways, but the propaganda today runs the other direction, and it has convinced a relatively small number of mostly city-dewlling Americans that the system they've invested in and depended upon for seven decades is now an evil mistake.
Click to expand...
The complete obliteration of all competing economies by a half decade of apocalyptic war is what created America's post-war economic boom. It wasn't Ford and GM doing some kind of wonderful alchemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top