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

Teban54 said:
FWIW, the current Middleborough/Lakeville Line runs every 1.5 hours on weekends. If we simply take these trips and extend to Fall River and New Bedford alternatingly, that gives 3-hour weekend headways.

Weekday headways range between 1 hour (rush hour peak direction) to 1.5 hours (midday), so it's not that much better.
Click to expand...

Quoting from the article only mentions a morning, afternoon, and evening train as a rudimentary level of weekend service for Fall River and New Bedford. 3 trains for the whole service day on weekends.
“I don’t think anyone’s looking for continuous service during the weekend,” he said. “But having a morning train, an afternoon train and an evening train, I don’t think is too much to have.”
Click to expand...

Using the existing Middleborough line's schedule gives 5 trains for the whole day for each of the two branches, which is better than then the quoted level of 3 trains for the day (AM, afternoon, evening), but still less than the worst weekend schedules on the CR today, which provides a minimum of 8 trips for the whole day.

To match today's minimum levels of weekend service on the worst CR lines, means having to run 14 - 16 trips in the trunk through Brockton in order to give 8 weekend trips to Fall River and New Bedford., It would be a 1.5x or 1.6x service increase in the trunk (depending on if the first and last train of the day is a mandatory transfer for 1 branch to give the same span of service for both branches).

On weekdays, the worst service levels on the CR seems to be 12 trips on the Franklin Line and 10 on the Foxboro line, only slightly better than 8 trips on the weekends (Foxboro and Stoughton have no weekend service). Giving 10 weekday trips to NB and FR each to match Foxboro still means adding 4 - 6 additional trips on weekdays to the Middleborough Line.
 
Delvin4519 said:
Quoting from the article only mentions a morning, afternoon, and evening train as a rudimentary level of weekend service for Fall River and New Bedford. 3 trains for the whole service day on weekends.
Click to expand...
That quote is from the "executive vice president of Bristol County Economic Development Consultants", aka politely a nobody when it comes to MBTA scheduling.

The MBTA service delivery policy stipulates a maximum of three hour headways on the weekends on commuter rail, I see no reason to believe this project won't easily meet that.
 
HelloBostonHi said:
That quote is from the "executive vice president of Bristol County Economic Development Consultants", aka politely a nobody when it comes to MBTA scheduling.

The MBTA service delivery policy stipulates a maximum of three hour headways on the weekends on commuter rail, I see no reason to believe this project won't easily meet that.
Click to expand...
The SDP only requires 3 hour headways between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays, with the first train from each branch arriving at South Station before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday and departing South Station at 6:30 p.m. Saturday or later.

There is no requirement for service OR service frequency for Saturday early AM, Saturday late evening, or Sunday service; on the Commuter Rail.

4 hour headways between 6:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. Saturday evening, or 5 hour Sunday headways, still meets the service frequency standard, since it is "extra, bonus" service after the minimum 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays SDP standard.

By this definition, the T only needs to provide 5 Saturday trips for both Fall River and New Bedford individually, to meet the standard. There is no requirement to provide a 6th Saturday trip, or Sunday service.
 
Delvin4519 said:
Quoting from the article only mentions a morning, afternoon, and evening train as a rudimentary level of weekend service for Fall River and New Bedford. 3 trains for the whole service day on weekends.
Click to expand...
this might kneecap the efforts for some to use South Coast rail as a connector to the ferries out of New Bedford. I know the NB ferry companies were lobbying for the line to terminate right near the ferry terminals near JFK Memorial and I'm happy they have some space so transit riders need to spend some time/$$$ in New Bedford, but those train-to-ferry riders will definitely be a boost of cash for New Bedford
 
Given the fiscal cliff looming when service finally starts, and one of the stated likely cuts being weekend CR service... I don't blame the T for not saying anything yet - it wouldn't be wise to until they get a better look at their fiscal state next year.
 
thepixelnation said:
this might kneecap the efforts for some to use South Coast rail as a connector to the ferries out of New Bedford. I know the NB ferry companies were lobbying for the line to terminate right near the ferry terminals near JFK Memorial and I'm happy they have some space so transit riders need to spend some time/$$$ in New Bedford, but those train-to-ferry riders will definitely be a boost of cash for New Bedford
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, but the ferry parking lot in New Bedford last night was about 98% full (and that included spilling into the commuter rail station area). Not sure what is going to happen when T service starts up. Guess they are thinking everyone is going to walk to the station? Don't think so. Ferry parking is like that most of the summer.
 
Stlin said:
Given the fiscal cliff looming when service finally starts, and one of the stated likely cuts being weekend CR service... I don't blame the T for not saying anything yet - it wouldn't be wise to until they get a better look at their fiscal state next year.
Click to expand...

anywhere I can read about this as a potential likely cut? that would be a huge bummer. the $10 CR weekend pass is one of the best things about the T.
 
GP40MC said:
Just an FYI, but the ferry parking lot in New Bedford last night was about 98% full (and that included spilling into the commuter rail station area). Not sure what is going to happen when T service starts up. Guess they are thinking everyone is going to walk to the station? Don't think so. Ferry parking is like that most of the summer.
Click to expand...
I was more thinking the Boston to New Bedford route rather than the other way around. I'm sure the city is much more focused on tourism/transit dollars entering the city, rather than providing park and ride parking for New Bedford residents trying to leave.
 
#bancars said:
www.bostonglobe.com

Dear MBTA: Googly eyes are great, but how about on-time projects and reliable trains? - The Boston Globe

The once-again delayed South Coast rail project is all too typical of the MBTA's management failures.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
themissinglink said:
www.heraldnews.com

Even when it opens, South Coast Rail may never be completely 'finished.' Here's why.

South Coast Rail is due to open in spring of 2025, but this is just Phase 1. There's a "full build" phase of the project, but will it ever happen?
www.heraldnews.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
riptide said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lrfox said:
^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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
  • (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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top