My presumption of 2030 levels is certainly much different than yours is, and if that report is anything to go off of, what the MBTA's is.
Well, that's the problem, CBS. You won't believe anything except your own presumptions whether there's 200 pages of official documentation saying otherwise or not. There's no reasoning with that if real data can't ever puncture your bubble of what things should be/must be.
My presumption of "2030 Service Levels" is 16 Peak TPH on the Fairmount Line (8 xMUs for Westwood/128, 4 xMUs for Foxboro, 2 hybrid-consist TPH for Woonsocket, 2 hybrid-consist TPH for Milford-via-Forge Park), 8 Off-Peak TPH (exactly half of everything), and my assumption is that future hybrid consists (at the minimum, future hybrids lashed up expressly for use on this corridor) will have similar enough acceleration to the xMUs that you could just run all trains local on the Fairmount Line and be fine as far as dispatching was concerned.
There will never be
xMU's on the Franklin Line or Framingham Secondary. That is the primary southside freight clearance route to Boston and from Worcester-Framingham to the South Coast, will always have less-efficient boarding low platforms because of that, and will always have pretty wide stop spacing sticking to almost entirely 9-5 residential and park-and-ride destinations. Norwood Central has some decent downtown density to tap; that could merit some more off-peak service. But they get that with Foxboro and get more of that if the Franklin end of the line sees extensions or branching, and that tracks with growth.
Again...your assumptions in a vacuum. Not the official quantified demographics that have been studied at length.
I know, I know. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and all that - but if we're going to treat the Fairmount Line like a Rapid Transit Line, running off-peak rapid transit frequencies during peak hour is not "good enough," never mind perfect - every 15 minutes wouldn't be acceptable for the Red/Blue/Orange Lines (which I anticipate as moving to every 3 minutes during peak by 2030); if we're committing to the Indigo Line, it isn't acceptable here either.
DMU lines
AREN'T rapid transit. Aren't. That's not what the mode does. All of these trains have to co-mingle with commuter rail and Amtrak at South Station that are on set schedules and not clock-facing. The Indigo Line isn't an Orange Line substitue; you can't get 7 minute headways on this mode unless it is total 100% isolated from the RR terminal and all crossing traffic. Which none of these lines are, and which none of these would generate ridership if they were.
Who is making this assumption that it has to be rapid transit? You are. Only you are.
For what it's worth, I'm not attached to 16 Peak TPH as a goal for the Fairmount Line (and I'd be more than happy with 8 TPH if all 8 trains were to be run local) - I haven't done the math for it to make an assertion one way or the other but if express service is still rated as the highest priority for this line I would be willing to believe that 6 xMU short-hauls + 4 longer-distance express-running commuter trains is doable and while I wouldn't be jumping for joy about every-10-minutes on the peak Fairmount Line, I'd be willing to call it "good enough."
I think it'll be plenty good enough. Fairmount has the highest OTP on the system and the most capacity to give far and away. But as I said, 10 minutes isn't possible when slots into SS aren't on an even rotation. And no one is promising that with the Indigos, so I'm not sure why that would be an expectation. Also...because of SS (and not because of Fairmount itself) there will be slight variances in the clock-facing headways. 15 minutes is an average. You will get 12 mins. some headways, you will get 18 minutes some headways. That's just how it's going to be because of the way schedules work at a major terminal. That is another reason why this is not "Rapid Transit" like Red/Orange and has no expectation of being so.
I don't think the Fairmount corridor much cares about this, because a rapid transit line is physically impossible through there. Ditto the Worcester Line DMU. It's going to be a bit more unsatisfying for Lynn, however, if this is what gets shoved on them as their forever consolation prize for never getting the Blue Line. Because it's a longer headway than rapid transit, and a more highly variable one especially at peak. But "good enough" and "transitional service" (if they really mean that) is the mode's entire purpose.
Wanting rapid transit means wanting an entirely different mode than DMU. You're asking for the wrong thing if this is supposed to be a magic bullet. It's no more a magic bullet than BRT is as a rapid transit replacement. It's a specific application for specific targets and the only alternative when none other is available, but it's never ever intended to be THE universal solvent. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
As an aside...
I don't have the same objection to running 4 TPH on any of the Worcester Line services because I still consider the Track 61 trolley to be a cheap gimmick that isn't worth our time or our limited resources (if BCEC wants to foot 100% of the bill and have the trolley be lowest-priority at all conflict points they can feel free to build it and run it themselves, otherwise, there are about a million other transit improvements for the Seaport and the rest of Boston that rate higher on the priority scale), the Grand Junction DMU's capacity limiter is probably the Grand Junction itself long before it's Worcester Line congestion, and the Riverside DMU stations are similarly hampered by exceptionally bad placement and have a long way to go before they can support the kind of frequency that Fairmount can in terms of raw ridership.
I really think Grand Junction is no-go for DMU's; it just can't support more than a couple TPH max with the streets it slices. The prior Worcester study had it about right. And I think this a good one for a couple Amtrak Inland Regionals or a semi-revival of of the old "State of Maine" NYC-Portland run where a limited-stop Regional turns into a limited-stop Downeaster at the North Station reverse. GJ's got plenty of passenger viability...it's just not this one specifically.
61's been discussed at length. It's a stopgap, and they aren't predicting more than 25 min. headways. With peak hours being dicey as to whether they'd even be able to swing that. It's worth doing if there's a mass DMU purchase because the vehicle requirements are so meager, but they need to tone down the over-promotion a bit. It's the niche-iest of the proposed lines by far.
(Also, it doesn't help the Riverside DMU's case one bit that Newton Corner didn't/doesn't rate as worth a stop and yet "West Station (Really? REALLY?)" does. Build Newton Corner and do something about the abysmal quality of life for prospective riders at West Newton and Auburndale, then the Riverside DMU will likely rate as an attractive choice for the volume of riders it needs to merit 8+ TPH.)
Eh. I wouldn't judge the original proposal on lack of an NC station because it was clearly lacking some fleshing-out and stuck to existing stations. Kendall (which probably ain't happening) and BCEC were the only two new stations, with Riverside not really being "new" and West/New Balance already being a go. Infill studies were clearly beyond the scope of this. I would expect revisions, especially because Newton is hot for a station there, the bus transfers practically demand it, and it offsets the operating costs a little bit to displace or consolidate most/(all?) of the Pike express buses into the service.
