No, they haven't. It's been studied. Amtrak said triple-track was adequate even if South Coast Rail branched off at Attleboro instead of Canton. It's been traffic modeled to 2035 levels. There is no problem.That Mansfield and Sharon are only receiving three tracks means they lowballed estimation of the capacity needed between Attleboro and Canton Junction, not that four tracks between Providence and Warwick is an over-estimate. Mansfield and Sharon need a fourth track too, especially if express commuter rail service is ever to be implemented.
Again...who decides this? YOU? You above Amtrak's own traffic engineers who shoved the maximum most MBTA and RIDOT traffic down its gut...then padded it...then still said it was OK if there were 3 continuous tracks.
You, CBS, need to explain why you are the ultimate decider here.
5 minute headways is shorter than the Orange Line. There will never be an xMU service pattern with that kind of service level where you can wait on platform and there'll be a train going your way. Anywhere. Much less in Greater Providence's density vs. Greater Boston's. I can buy an extremely crowded downtown on the NEC having a train movement every 5 mins. or less because so many xMU's, 8-car Providence Line trains, 12-car Regionals, and Acelas are in constant motion around the terminal. But those are ALL trains, not YOUR train.A fourth track between Providence and Warwick buys us five-minute peak headways on an EMU service pinging back and forth without disrupting Amtrak's probable 2 + 2 TPH OR the 4 peak TPH of slower commuter service meandering back and forth between Westerly and Pawtucket. It lets us build stations at Atwells/Harris, Olneyville, Union Ave, Elmwood Ave, Park Ave and Norwood where otherwise there is only room for one station somewhere in Cranston, and lets us treat the core of the line like a true rapid transit service even as we allow the outer stretches of the line to behave like commuter rail.
And we can do that without waiting on 50 year hideously expensive propositions with questionable success chances like ripping out RI-10 to get the necessary ROW a different way, or going to exponential expense on alternate service patterns like streetcars/BRT up RI-2 and US-1 that by and large replicates the kind of service which would have otherwise been provided here.
Who decides this? The people at RIDOT, the MBTA, and Amtrak who actually studied what service levels would sustain Rhode Island's maximum possible growth for the next 30 years. Or you?
And you decide this, not the multiple agencies or the home state itself who have been studying the demographic data, the traffic data, the everything data for decades. You decide this.Never is an absurdly unequivocal statement considering the density levels in relative no-mans-lands like Darien and Fairfield and Rye and assuming modest growth of the corridor.
And this is totally, utterly irrelevant when this service is commencing full-build in 5-8 years. What are you suggesting here? That they put everything on hold until 1 state re-charters its transit agency pan-region with input from all 175 member towns, and two states have their voters go to the polls. Maybe 15 years from now, but probably never?The symbiotic relationship RIDOT and MassDOT/MBTA have today in 2014 isn't necessarily the relationship they're going to have even in 2029, especially if RIDOT decides to start really ramping up service in-state. It's not impossible that the dynamic could shift to be more like what Metro-North is today.
Yowza. ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
And again...are you the one who approves/rejects all the thousands of man hours of officially-sanctioned study data that says everyone has all the capacity they need through 2035. You do. You think everyone is wrong about how fast RI is growing?And you're forgetting that even if the relationship dynamic stays the same, MBTA's interests aren't necessarily best served by all-local trips especially if the express runs from a Kingston or a Providence are packed with RI revenue payers who were driving otherwise because of how slow the train was stopping everywhere in MA, or if it stops being standing-room-only on some peak trains where MA residents can't get a seat because it's packed full of people who got on further down the line.
Can you try substantiating these claims with anything beyond your own fervent personal belief?
Actually, I would. If the shoe were on the other foot I'd be arguing that RIDOT pursue operation into New London because that's the next logical terminus after Kingston and building two halves of a line with an arbitrary changeover dictated by legislative (in)convenience makes no sense no matter which side of the border has the changeover point - but knowing what I do about how the state treats Westerly (the words 'red-headed stepchild' come to mind), I know that the end result would be the same; hopefully cross-operation agreements into New London and Kingston, probably no service between New London and Kingston.
The good news is, there's far less ground to cover between Westerly and Kingston as there would be Pawcatuck and New London, so it's accordingly far more likely that CTDOT will cooperate.
And now you are dictating to CTDOT what is in best interests of CT taxpayers, and dictating to the MBTA to enter into a mercenary agreement to operate two states removed from its district and district-oriented revenue sources. When CTDOT's own State Rail Plan spells out that they think Westerly and no further is their constituency.Actually, CT does have an interest in serving Kingston when rail to Newport is functionally impossible (the Sakonnet toll bridge fiasco has now taken Newport - Fall River off the table as an option for the next 100 years, Bristol - Newport wasn't an option since the East Bay Bike Path came into being and no other crossing opportunities actually exist) and the next best thing is rail to Kingston - bus to Newport, which connects NUWC to the Coast Guard Academy and more broadly connects Newport to all the pleasant little hamlets between New London and the state line. It's not ideal, but it's literally the best we can do at this point.
Who decides what is in their interests. According to you...that is only you.
And you are the one who draws those arbitrary lines about where other states shall and shan't go.Even if rail to Newport wasn't functionally impossible, New London - Kingston - Newport is still much faster than New London - Providence - Newport and while we disagree that CT doesn't benefit from running to Kingston, I think we can certainly agree that they have no interest in running to Wickford or the Airport or Providence itself.
Good God, CBS. I'm not even going to respond to your next message point-by-point, because it's the same exact response. And this has gotten fuckin' mental. You really need to take a step back, sleep on this, and read your own writing with a clear head. There is no discussion to be had here when the only answer is "I am Planning God, and I command you to build this to my image of perfection. And move heaven and earth for it to be so. Because only I know what's best for you." How does one have a discussion with that. There is no reasoning, no compromise, no empirical evidence, no search for a practical or equivocal solution with that. What you want does not exist on this earth, and you don't seem prepared to deal with that. At all. I don't know what to say.