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

As cute as those were, I could not understand everyone hyping up the MBTA for those googly eyes. People from the "protest" were talking about how this was proof that they listen to citizens – seems to say it proves how easily they could listen in every other scenario
 
At no point did phase II ever seem like anything other than a bait-and-switch. I would be shocked, pleasantly so but shocked all the same, if phase II happens by 2040.
 
If Regional Rail (i.e. :30 service on the Stoughton main) is now the future-proofing threshold, they pretty much can't build it at 2013 FEIR specifications because it simply won't work with the single-tracking. As I scoped out in this post 10 years ago, all Fall River peak-period trains (in RER universe, basically all day long) had to skip Easton Village, Raynham, Downtown Taunton, and East Taunton to make time for their train meets with New Bedford Branch trains. New Bedford peak-period trains had to skip Canton Jct., Canton Center, and Stoughton to make time for their train meets with Fall River Branch trains. So the Stoughton Line, despite running 4 TPH, would only have hourly service at all stops except for common-denominator North Easton which would hit :30 frequencies. It's outright transit loss for the Stoughton Line if they move to RER frequencies before the build.

Worse, the peak trains that expressed on the main and the off-peak trains that made all stops on the main had total travel times that varied by only 2 minutes express vs. non-express, meaning there were to be lengthy holds on passing sidings built in as schedule padding for all the brittle single-track meets. Meaning, it's basically impossible to dispatch on-time at peak...and thus impossible to dispatch on-time as all-day RER.


Basically, if they don't revisit the FEIR from scratch there's no way it'll physically work with the Rail Vision. Second-class service forever.
 
I agree that they'll need to take another bite at the EIS/EIR apple, but it's hard to see SCR Phase I creating the political impetus to do so. This is a project that depended in large part on geographic equity to push it ahead of other projects with much sounder fundamentals. Phase I will represent a $2 billion gesture toward geographic equity regardless of whether it works as transit. Once the inherent issues with Phase I start to manifest themselves in lackluster ridership stats, and the geographic equity card has already been played, why throw another billion towards what will look like a $2 billion sinkhole, when other parts of the state have much more viable projects awaiting funding?

Perhaps it will take a non-SCR proposal to create enough political cover to reopen the file in a timely manner. Maybe MA & RI jointly throw their hat in the ring, next time Amtrak's Corridor ID program is accepting applications, and put forward the idea of establishing a Boston to Newport corridor via the Phase II (Stoughton) alignment. The point of the Corridor ID program is create a pipeline of intercity passenger rail projects for future funding/implementation. There's no reason commuter rail couldn't use that alignment once it was built...it just can't be the reason to build it. In practice, though, it could create a nearer-term opportunity to reexamine the Phase II alignment and hopefully remove the insanity that the Army Corps imposed on it.

The proposed service would therefore need to be a new Amtrak route or else the feds would probably view the application as a trojan horse for a commuter rail project. Say it's a cross between the Downeaster and the CapeFLYER, and it makes six stops: Newport, Fall River, Taunton, Route 128, Back Bay, and South Station. At 70-ish route miles, it wouldn't be the shortest corridor Amtrak's approved through the program -- Charlotte to Kings Mountain, NC is half the distance, for example. And with similar pricing to Downeaster monthly passes (which are something like $80 cheaper than a monthly T pass for a rail trip of equivalent distance), it's not impossible to imagine reasonable year-round appeal beyond peak (summer) season, when Newport is in its glory.
 
I agree that they'll need to take another bite at the EIS/EIR apple, but it's hard to see SCR Phase I creating the political impetus to do so. This is a project that depended in large part on geographic equity to push it ahead of other projects with much sounder fundamentals. Phase I will represent a $2 billion gesture toward geographic equity regardless of whether it works as transit. Once the inherent issues with Phase I start to manifest themselves in lackluster ridership stats, and the geographic equity card has already been played, why throw another billion towards what will look like a $2 billion sinkhole, when other parts of the state have much more viable projects awaiting funding?

Perhaps it will take a non-SCR proposal to create enough political cover to reopen the file in a timely manner. Maybe MA & RI jointly throw their hat in the ring, next time Amtrak's Corridor ID program is accepting applications, and put forward the idea of establishing a Boston to Newport corridor via the Phase II (Stoughton) alignment. The point of the Corridor ID program is create a pipeline of intercity passenger rail projects for future funding/implementation. There's no reason commuter rail couldn't use that alignment once it was built...it just can't be the reason to build it. In practice, though, it could create a nearer-term opportunity to reexamine the Phase II alignment and hopefully remove the insanity that the Army Corps imposed on it.

The proposed service would therefore need to be a new Amtrak route or else the feds would probably view the application as a trojan horse for a commuter rail project. Say it's a cross between the Downeaster and the CapeFLYER, and it makes six stops: Newport, Fall River, Taunton, Route 128, Back Bay, and South Station. At 70-ish route miles, it wouldn't be the shortest corridor Amtrak's approved through the program -- Charlotte to Kings Mountain, NC is half the distance, for example. And with similar pricing to Downeaster monthly passes (which are something like $80 cheaper than a monthly T pass for a rail trip of equivalent distance), it's not impossible to imagine reasonable year-round appeal beyond peak (summer) season, when Newport is in its glory.
I don't think Newport alone is going to move the needle. It's very far from Boston, and even in the NYNH&H days there was only a bit schedule continuing past Fall River. From the 1920's on, service was catered to the weekenders. If RIDOT wanted to reactivate the Tiverton tracks and rebuild the bridge I think an in-season Cape Flyer analogue can work on unsignaled 30 MPH track, but that's about it. It's not going to muscle the feddy bux.


The "non-SCR proposal" that can move the needle is Regional Rail. If the rest of the system is moving to :30 frequencies and 1-hour travel times to I-495, the "equity" problem rears its ugly head with Phase I. Then you can take a fresh look at Phase II and try to correct some of the fatal flaws in the FEIR:
  • Actually treating NEC track capacity. The FEIR's schedule skipped all on-NEC stops except Back Bay, resulting in frequency loss to Ruggles, Hyde Park, and 128 stations as those got stripped totally off the Stoughton schedules. All those stops are in the intra-128 :15 Urban Rail zone, so skip-stoppage is not going to be an option under a transformed system. Now, the FEIR stupidly made no assumptions of on-NEC track expansion after an earlier SCR-studied megaproject widening of the SW Corridor cut was turfed as too expensive for the benefits (it is). So it left the corridor crippled with Readville-Canton double-track, which isn't even going to be enough to get Stoughton outfitted with :30 service. That plan (or lackthereof) has changed in a big way as the Rail Vision and Amtrak are speccing that third track extension to satiate general growth and general Providence/Stoughton Regional Rail. That should be enough to get the on-NEC stops back on the Phase II schedule, so let's model that.
  • Modeling with EMU's, not electric push-pull. The electrified Preferred Alt. in the FEIR was an ass-covering measure to paper over the ultra-brittle meets. It only netted a sub-5% savings in travel time over the diesel Alt., which is pathetic when the NEC Commission modeled the Providence Line schedules shrinking by 20-25% using the same-class EMU's that netted Caltrain a real-world 25% reduction in its end-to-end schedules. Train meets will be totally different with EMU's, and that'll be key for troubleshooting where there must be double-track. If the diesel alternative got even a 15% reduction due to EMU's, travel times to the endpoints would slot in at just under 70 minutes...which is pretty darn good given the distance.
  • (The big one) Challenge the FEIR's single-tracking anvil. There was no justification given in the report why there had to be a single-track only swamp trestle, only that it must be so. That's ripe for a challenging. Obviously it would be great if a less politically-malicious future Army Corps administration let the original double-track embankment stand as kosher for rehab/re-use, saving about $50-100M. They did, after all, allow re-use of a long-abandoned embankment in an even more ecologically-sensitive estuary in Scituate when the Greenbush Line was restored. But even if a reversing of that decision is not in the cards, why can't it be a double-track trestle? At least press them to name a reason why or why not. And why is there so much single-track in general? From just north of Easton Village station to just north of Raynham station is all-single (p. 9), as well as a large segment south of Raynham and north of Downtown Taunton. Most of that single is where the swamp is not. Why can't there at least be double-track through all the stations and in the non-wetlands. The FEIR gave no answers; it just said it must be so. So model the sucker with as much double-tracking as possible excepting the swamp trestle, and see where the chips fall on the meets. TransitMatters thinks that the Old Colony pinch can feed three :30 branches with very small, pinched-out segments of single-track through Wollaston to north-of-Quincy Center and south-of-Quincy Center through Quincy Adams...and that's a fairly reasonable conclusion since they weren't raising speed limits on that part of the main. So how does SCR II model out with EMU's and eveything but the swamp trestle doubled-up. It's less traffic than the "75% doubled" OC main that supposedly checked out OK; by all logic that should be enough to make the SCR II meets work without the extreme brittleness and hacky pauses of the FEIR.
  • All Stoughton mainline stops get served on all trains. None of this "FR skips half-the stops"/"NB skips half the stops" cripple-fest from the FEIR to make the hacky meets work. The double-tracking must allow :30 minute service to all Stoughton mainline stops to East Taunton, or else it's not Regional Rail.
  • Guarantee all-day hourly service on the branches to the cities. As above, by RER principles all stops through East Taunton would be getting Stoughton's :30 frequencies. Branches-of-a-branch obviously wouldn't qualify for that, but we're well past-495 by Taunton so that shouldn't be an expectation anyway. But hourly all-day service to each city at 70 minute travel times will exponentially boost the ridership from the cities; it's better than anybody's CR service today.
 
^Yeah, I see that as being the only way Phase II happens. Regular Newport service would be great, but I don't think there's an appetite for the effort it would take to make it happen. In terms of "equity," connecting reasonably affluent/touristy Newport/Aquidneck Island is far less equitable than connecting unserved Woonsocket, or improving service from Warwick - both of which are closer to Boston and more socioeconomically diverse. The requirement for a new bridge over the Sakonnet probably makes it cost prohibitive for Cape Flyer-like service. And Aquidneck Island residents would fight it tooth and nail. It's more or less a nonstarter.

FR/NB Phase II is a hard sell on its own. Especially if ridership numbers on the Phase I route are dismal (which they likely will be). It'll take something like an overall system-wide shift in order to make it happen. Regional rail is the big one. Not only will Phase II be essential for getting the headways/timings necessary, but removing SCR trains from the Old Colony Line would be a key to improving service on the other lines using that corridor.
 
^Yeah, I see that as being the only way Phase II happens. Regular Newport service would be great, but I don't think there's an appetite for the effort it would take to make it happen. In terms of "equity," connecting reasonably affluent/touristy Newport/Aquidneck Island is far less equitable than connecting unserved Woonsocket, or improving service from Warwick - both of which are closer to Boston and more socioeconomically diverse. The requirement for a new bridge over the Sakonnet probably makes it cost prohibitive for Cape Flyer-like service. And Aquidneck Island residents would fight it tooth and nail. It's more or less a nonstarter.
Frankly, at least for Woonsocket, Warwick and similar are concerned, I don't think that's within the MBTA/MassDOTs remit - they're not going to be concerned with equity for an out of state community, no matter how much it could benefit them. How to serve those communities is a RI decision - in the abstract it's similar to how NH won't support a Manchester and Nashua CR link, despite the benefits to those cities.
 
Frankly, at least for Woonsocket, Warwick and similar are concerned, I don't think that's within the MBTA/MassDOTs remit - they're not going to be concerned with equity for an out of state community, no matter how much it could benefit them. How to serve those communities is a RI decision - in the abstract it's similar to how NH won't support a Manchester and Nashua CR link, despite the benefits to those cities.
MBTA/MassDOT does not have the community equity issue in their policy portfolio for RI communities.

But they do have skin in the game for cross-state-line automobile traffic, and rail service to help reduce SOV trips. RI might be more cooperative than NH in a double pronged approach to both issues (equity and traffic) (with an MA nudge).
 
  • (The big one) Challenge the FEIR's single-tracking anvil. There was no justification given in the report why there had to be a single-track only swamp trestle, only that it must be so. That's ripe for a challenging. Obviously it would be great if a less politically-malicious future Army Corps administration let the original double-track embankment stand as kosher for rehab/re-use, saving about $50-100M. They did, after all, allow re-use of a long-abandoned embankment in an even more ecologically-sensitive estuary in Scituate when the Greenbush Line was restored. But even if a reversing of that decision is not in the cards, why can't it be a double-track trestle? At least press them to name a reason why or why not. And why is there so much single-track in general? From just north of Easton Village station to just north of Raynham station is all-single (p. 9), as well as a large segment south of Raynham and north of Downtown Taunton. Most of that single is where the swamp is not. Why can't there at least be double-track through all the stations and in the non-wetlands. The FEIR gave no answers; it just said it must be so. So model the sucker with as much double-tracking as possible excepting the swamp trestle, and see where the chips fall on the meets. Transit Matters thinks that the Old Colony pinch can feed three :30 branches with very small, pinched-out segments of single-track through Wollaston to north-of-Quincy Center and south-of-Quincy Center through Quincy Adams...and that's a fairly reasonable conclusion since they weren't raising speed limits on that part of the main. So how does SCR II model out with EMU's and eveything but the swamp trestle doubled-up. It's less traffic than the "75% doubled" OC main that supposedly checked out OK; by all logic that should be enough to make the SCR II meets work without the extreme brittleness and hacky pauses of the FEIR.

Totally agree...I remember your response on Railroad.Net many years ago. I even saved it for future reference. To me, you could have a series of smaller trestles and maybe culverts that might assuage the AOC. Confidence was/is low.
 
Frankly, at least for Woonsocket, Warwick and similar are concerned, I don't think that's within the MBTA/MassDOTs remit - they're not going to be concerned with equity for an out of state community, no matter how much it could benefit them. How to serve those communities is a RI decision - in the abstract it's similar to how NH won't support a Manchester and Nashua CR link, despite the benefits to those cities.
Of course. I'm speaking about Rhode Island since they'd likely be on the hook for funding the project (the RI portion, at least). Regardless of what the MBTA/MassDOT's equity concerns are, as long as equity in transit access carries the weight it does, RI/RIDOT would have a hard time selling a Newport extension over pushing for adding service to a place like Woonsocket (or improving service beyond Providence). Or even improved service in/around Providence. The only way I could see Newport happening is if there was a significant sum of federal and/or private money specifically dedicated to a Newport line. But in reality, I don't see RIDOT having an interest in doing much more than slight improvements to Providence service/connections.
 
But in reality, I don't see RIDOT having an interest in doing much more than slight improvements to Providence service/connections.

Because RIDOT is still facing intense backlash/bad optics from the (perceived) white elephant that is Wickford Junction? (I mean, it can't be as bad as Studio 38...)

What kind of ROI, in the most generously holistic sense, is RI getting on that transit center, do we think? Strictly in terms of daily ridership, I can only assume the investment has been abysmal, assuming this ProJo story from Oct. 2022 remains accurate.

https://www.providencejournal.com/s...idership-boston-gradually-rising/10535271002/
 
Because RIDOT is still facing intense backlash/bad optics from the (perceived) white elephant that is Wickford Junction? (I mean, it can't be as bad as Studio 38...)

What kind of ROI, in the most generously holistic sense, is RI getting on that transit center, do we think? Strictly in terms of daily ridership, I can only assume the investment has been abysmal, assuming this ProJo story from Oct. 2022 remains accurate.

https://www.providencejournal.com/s...idership-boston-gradually-rising/10535271002/
Wickford gets 8 round-trips per weekday with 2-3 hour headways, and no weekend service. Of course it isn't generating ridership. RIDOT was supposed to have advanced more of its intrastate CR buildout by now allowing service increases to Wickford. It hasn't acted on any of that. It's a proven axiom that frequencies generate ridership. Wickford on-spec wasn't a bad idea, but if they want the ridership they're going to have to generate more frequencies and pony up with the capital investments that make it so.

The half-assing of Wickford service levels is a beating red warning sign for SCR Phase I. If you don't supply halfway usable frequencies for the build money, the ridership is going to struggle like hell to materialize.
 
Wickford gets 8 round-trips per weekday with 2-3 hour headways, and no weekend service. Of course it isn't generating ridership. RIDOT was supposed to have advanced more of its intrastate CR buildout by now allowing service increases to Wickford. It hasn't acted on any of that. It's a proven axiom that frequencies generate ridership. Wickford on-spec wasn't a bad idea, but if they want the ridership they're going to have to generate more frequencies and pony up with the capital investments that make it so.

The half-assing of Wickford service levels is a beating red warning sign for SCR Phase I. If you don't supply halfway usable frequencies for the build money, the ridership is going to struggle like hell to materialize.
Although, at least the SCR station locations are actually near people. Walk-up potential isn't perfect, but it's better than Wickford or TF Green, and at least SRTA is planning on service improvements to feed the trains. (My understanding is that they're going to be implementing cutaway minibuses operating on-demand microtransit to cover the "urban areas.")

Beyond the frequency issues I'm not going to dispute, the business case for Wickford Junction was always off. Its is legitimately in the middle of nowhere, and thus has zero walk-up potential absent significant TOD. That station is/was entirely reliant on car commuters coming in and parking - there's not even a corporate shuttle to quonset. Same thing with TF Green; the station serves the airport perfectly adequately, but doesn't meaningfully serve Warwick. if you're going to have an isolated station, they all need better local transit connections. I believe at opening exactly zero ripta routes served it, and South County isn't exactly the bit of RI with lots of people and traffic to begin with.

That said, what proves the frequency argument is the fact that the Ripta 66 doubles the south County CR ridership. For the northern half of its service pattern it entirely duplicates the CR service, running Providence - TF Green - Wickford Junction with minimal stops and diversions. It's ripta's 3rd most popular regional route, with ½ hour weekday frequencies and, by the timetable, only about 20 minutes slower PVD - Wickford - and looking at its data it tends to arrive early. Compared to the CR that extra 20 minutes is easily worth the ease of walking to a bus stop, direct connection to ridership generators (namely CCRI, 'gansett and URI), etc.
 
Last edited:
Wickford gets 8 round-trips per weekday with 2-3 hour headways, and no weekend service. Of course it isn't generating ridership. RIDOT was supposed to have advanced more of its intrastate CR buildout by now allowing service increases to Wickford. It hasn't acted on any of that. It's a proven axiom that frequencies generate ridership. Wickford on-spec wasn't a bad idea, but if they want the ridership they're going to have to generate more frequencies and pony up with the capital investments that make it so.

The half-assing of Wickford service levels is a beating red warning sign for SCR Phase I. If you don't supply halfway usable frequencies for the build money, the ridership is going to struggle like hell to materialize.
Beyond the frequency issues I'm not going to dispute, the business case for Wickford Junction was always off. Its is legitimately in the middle of nowhere, and thus has zero walk-up potential absent significant TOD. That station is/was entirely reliant on car commuters coming in and parking - there's not even a corporate shuttle to quonset. Same thing with TF Green; the station serves the airport perfectly adequately, but doesn't meaningfully serve Warwick. if you're going to have an isolated station, they all need better local transit connections. I believe at opening exactly zero ripta routes served it, and South County isn't exactly the bit of RI with lots of people and traffic to begin with.
It's worth recalling that RI also split its intrastate rail rollout into two phases, not too dissimilar from SCR. Phase 1 was TF Green and Wickford Junction; Phase 2 was the rest of the extension to Kingston and Westerly, plus infills at East Greenwich, West Davisville, Cranston, etc. Once it became clear how badly Phase 1 ridership was underperforming vs. the initial projections, the state put Phase 2 on ice, and that's where it's stayed for the past 12 years. Only in the last year is RI finally peeking its head out of the foxhole and giving serious thought to a statewide system again, most likely thanks to Pawtucket/Central Falls Station "proving" that rail can work if you get your station siting right and provide enough service.

Both service frequency and station siting matter. Frequency is what matters most from a practical standpoint, and that's what will likely delay SCR Phase 2 by a decade or more. But as long as the SCR stations are modestly designed, they'll at least avoid RI's unforced error with how Wickford Junction was sited and designed.

From a public perception standpoint, I think Wickford Junction Station itself did more to set back RI's intrastate rail plans than anything else. At first glance, even today, it strikes you as a waste. It's an imposing, three-story parking garage that looms over some grass and the side of a Petco, as thoughtfully-designed as it is empty. (For me, the icing on the cake has always been the historical photo on the station platform sign...what better way to politely say "there's nothing here" than to label the sign as Wickford Junction, but show an image of The Towers in Narragansett, 10 miles away.)

The siting was a mess in the making even before the station was built. The site itself, which falls within a groundwater protection overlay that prohibits sewer infrastructure, was available because the developer of the shopping plaza next door sat on the parcel since the 1980s in the hopes the state would put a station on it. Sure enough, eventually the state bought the site and co-developed the station with him, a sort of P3. Ostensibly the station's high ridership projections were based on the fact that the site had good highway access, which would make it a good park-and-ride. But state and local interests were not aligned...see the comments on p.43 of this report from both the public and planning board members. The locals didn't want the station to generate traffic, TOD, or economic development! One of the only things they did support was linking the station with more local bus routes. It took three years for the state to try to bring bus routes to the station, and once they did, the developer sued them because he thought the buses would diminish traffic flow to his shopping plaza, among other things. Here's to hoping SCR Phase 1 doesn't go above and beyond with the antics like Wickford Junction did.
 
In terms of frequency, to what extent is the single track platform design limiting for the stations southwest of Providence?
 
In terms of frequency, to what extent is the single track platform design limiting for the stations southwest of Providence?
With some passing loops added, not to any degree that would realistically be a problem. We might need to give up on the extremely widely held dream of 10 minute headways to Wickford Junction but I think everyone is fine with that.
 
Somewhat related, but I'm not sure whether to put this in the SCR thread here or the generic Commuter Rail thread:

I've been collecting paper schedules for commuter rail and buses since 2022. I just noticed that on the latest Spring/Summer schedule dated May 20, 2024, the paper schedule has renamed "Middleborough Line" to "Middleborough/Lakeville Line". All schedules in 2022 and 2023 do not have Lakeville as part of the line's name.

1000039304.jpg


I find May 2024 to be a particularly intriguing time to make such a change, especially in context of South Coast Rail opening soon (though it seems likely that one more Fall/Winter schedule will end at Lakeville).

Perhaps they intentionally made the Lakeville distinction clearer because of SCR on the horizon, so that people know this particular schedule serves Lakeville but not future ones? Or perhaps they were just standardizing line names across the board (even though this was the only line whose name was changed on paper schedules)?
 
Somewhat related, but I'm not sure whether to put this in the SCR thread here or the generic Commuter Rail thread:

I've been collecting paper schedules for commuter rail and buses since 2022. I just noticed that on the latest Spring/Summer schedule dated May 20, 2024, the paper schedule has renamed "Middleborough Line" to "Middleborough/Lakeville Line". All schedules in 2022 and 2023 do not have Lakeville as part of the line's name.

View attachment 52815

I find May 2024 to be a particularly intriguing time to make such a change, especially in context of South Coast Rail opening soon (though it seems likely that one more Fall/Winter schedule will end at Lakeville).

Perhaps they intentionally made the Lakeville distinction clearer because of SCR on the horizon, so that people know this particular schedule serves Lakeville but not future ones? Or perhaps they were just standardizing line names across the board (even though this was the only line whose name was changed on paper schedules)?
Don't try to make sense of the CR style/branding, there is only madness and suffering waiting for you.
 
Last edited:
In terms of frequency, to what extent is the single track platform design limiting for the stations southwest of Providence?
T.F. Green and Wickford were both designed to later have northbound platforms added on new 4th track turnouts on the other side. T.F. Green is also future-proofed for electrification by installing a wide-swingout freight gauntlet track on the current platform track that allows the 19'2" autoracks to slot 'between' the sets of wires.

This is the track/platform schematic from the 2010 NEC Improvements Master Plan document, signed off on by both RIDOT and the MBTA. The short-term stuff in red has been built. The medium-term stuff in blue was supposed to have been built by now, with the long-term stuff in green supposed to have been advancing by now. Only Pawtucket (placeholdered on this map without a firm platform layout) and the Kingston renovation/expansion actually happened. Wickford service was supposed to have been extended to Kingston coincident with the northbound Wickford platform being added and frequencies increased. RIDOT's given up on getting Kingston on any CR schedules, and the schedules themselves have not expanded since opening.
1721334245400.png
 

Back
Top