Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

I live within walking distance of a commuter rail stop in Beverly. I ain't using it for weekend/evening events regularly unless they increase service to 2 trains per hour off peak.

And Beverly/Salem got around 2k riders a day each before COVID, and that's without reliable all day scheduling or direct service downtown (the negative of the location of north station).

The commuter rail is convenient for 9-5, but more needs to be done to make it convenient off peak.

Also, prices should come down. It's a bit too expensive, with a family of four driving in and parking is cost competitive with 4 CR tickets. It shouldn't be, especially off peak.
 
fatnoah said:
I'm a daily Lowell Line rider and the 75+% of pre-COVID feels pretty right to me. Every row has people in the seats, with many doubles holding two, and all triples holding at least 2. Only a few of the triples are fully occupied. Pre-COVID, I'd estimate all of the doubles would be full and some of the triples for my usual AM trains.
Click to expand...

In 2019, the Lowell line had 8 inbound trains from 6 AM - 9 AM. Now it has 4 (plus one train that leaves at 5:50). That's what I am talking about.
 
jklo said:
In 2019, the Lowell line had 8 inbound trains from 6 AM - 9 AM. Now it has 4 (plus one train that leaves at 5:50). That's what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the switch to clock face scheduling and more consistent running during non-peak weekday hours. But as jklo points out, the peak AM and PM frequencies are abysmal on some lines. If we’re talking about the Lowell Line, there’s only one train that’ll get you in your office by 9am (the 8:06 NS arrival) unless you work within two minutes of NS for the 8:51 arrival. It’s really pathetic. Even though we all hope and dream of the system being used as regional rail, I still believe there is a significant segment of CR riders who use it in the traditional peak commuting sense (I haven’t looked up the COVID era data so I’ll concede this point if the data show otherwise) and the peak frequencies just aren’t there for them under the new scheduling regime.

And if we’re talking about the value the CR system provides, it is during peak AM & PM when congestion creates scarcity on roadways vs 10a-2pm when traffic is a lot less of a concern. So by removing any peak scheduling, you’re taking away the value the CR system provides from a roadway congestion standpoint.
 
WestMedford said:
I appreciate the switch to clock face scheduling and more consistent running during non-peak weekday hours. But as jklo points out, the peak AM and PM frequencies are abysmal on some lines. If we’re talking about the Lowell Line, there’s only one train that’ll get you in your office by 9am (the 8:06 NS arrival) unless you work within two minutes of NS for the 8:51 arrival. It’s really pathetic. Even though we all hope and dream of the system being used as regional rail, I still believe there is a significant segment of CR riders who use it in the traditional peak commuting sense (I haven’t looked up the COVID era data so I’ll concede this point if the data show otherwise) and the peak frequencies just aren’t there for them under the new scheduling regime.

And if we’re talking about the value the CR system provides, it is during peak AM & PM when congestion creates scarcity on roadways vs 10a-2pm when traffic is a lot less of a concern. So by removing any peak scheduling, you’re taking away the value the CR system provides from a roadway congestion standpoint.
Click to expand...

It seems like at least part of how they achieved closer to clock-facing schedules was spreading out the trains because the COVID-induced skyrocketing of work-from-home meant that the demand all those peak trains were carrying essentially vanished. Since that demand hasn't returned to pre-pandemic levels, it's not clear to me whether they have the capacity (in terms of equipment and employees) to both meet a full-demand peak service should that be necessary and to maintain the wider clock-facing service throughout the day. In essence, at least at first, they didn't so much add capacity as move it around, and I remain concerned about how the system will fare if and when they need to dedicate more service specifically at peak.
 
Brattle Loop said:
It seems like at least part of how they achieved closer to clock-facing schedules was spreading out the trains because the COVID-induced skyrocketing of work-from-home meant that the demand all those peak trains were carrying essentially vanished. Since that demand hasn't returned to pre-pandemic levels, it's not clear to me whether they have the capacity (in terms of equipment and employees) to both meet a full-demand peak service should that be necessary and to maintain the wider clock-facing service throughout the day. In essence, at least at first, they didn't so much add capacity as move it around, and I remain concerned about how the system will fare if and when they need to dedicate more service specifically at peak.
Click to expand...
Mod: This is turning into an MBTA CR Operations discussion so feel free to move if needed.

I am aware the all-day service replaced the old peak service model during the pandemic. From an equipment and logistical standpoint, they can clearly run peak service because they were doing it prior to COVID, and I haven’t read about any mass retirements of locomotives or coaches since 2019 that’d prevent them from running it again. So it must be a labor issue, which I can understand given the unemployment rate and all employers complaining about labor shortages. Didn’t the T / Keolis save on labor costs by switching to the all-day model? Can’t they plow some of that savings into some extra peak service (given they can find workers).

And when I say return peak service, by no means do I think they should go back to the pre-COVID peak hours (something like 6-10am and 3-7pm). That’s clearly too much given where demand is now and the work from home phenomenon. Maybe something more narrow like 7-8:30am and 4:30-6:00pm (i.e. peak service “light”) where they can add a couple more consists to entice those who switched to driving since 2020 and are hesitant to return to CR given lack of peak service.

Anecdotally, those in my downtown Boston office claim they would take the CR again if there was more peak service. Right now they fall into two camps :

Live outside 128: drive into Boston
Live inside 128: drive into Boston or drive to a rapid transit station and park

They claim (and btw I’m very skeptical of their claim given the allure of the SOV) that the lack of peak frequency is what is holding them back. Well, both that and the CR cost (but that’s a different argument).

Anyway my hope with the NS, SS, and BBY fare gates is the silver lining that the T /Keolis will have much more accurate data to gauge demand and make scheduling decisions based on that. It’s clear the Tuesday - Thursday roadway commutes are back to pre-pandemic levels, so the time equation does make sense again (public transit vs driving). If the T was ever inventive, maybe offer the peak service “light” I described above on those three days where the operational costs could be recouped.

Again, I’m just shooting from the hip here because I have no data, but the peak trains seem more crowded since Labor Day and I think there’s some “if you build it, they will come” demand out there during the worst traffic days.
 
The Greenbush discussion got me thinking: Since the single track on Old Colony mainline is a bottleneck that limits frequencies on each branch, and seems to have major challenges in double tracking, is it possible to improve frequency on the branches by adding trips that terminate at Braintree and/or Quincy Center?
 
Teban54 said:
The Greenbush discussion got me thinking: Since the single track on Old Colony mainline is a bottleneck that limits frequencies on each branch, and seems to have major challenges in double tracking, is it possible to improve frequency on the branches by adding trips that terminate at Braintree and/or Quincy Center?
Click to expand...
I’ve thought about it. Quincy Center is almost certainly no-go because your short-turn train would block the main line while it turns. Braintree at least has two tracks. I don’t remember the exact times, but you take a pretty severe penalty if you force a transfer to Red. If you could do a cross-platform transfer to a continuing commuter rail train, maybe it could work? But I’m skeptical. I’d probably want to try to a pilot focused on bringing high(ish) frequency service to Brockton and see how that goes.
 
According to the Rail Vision Alternatives Analysis, the Greenbush Line can achieve 30-minute peak frequencies, and 60-minute off-peak frequencies, without any more infrastructure upgrades to the Old Colony Lines. That system is outlined in Alternative 2 (Regional Rail to Key Stations (Diesel)). That alternative calls for 8 tph per direction over the Old Colony Mainline.

Is that report to be believed? Are those frequencies achievable with just a fleet expansion alone?
 
tysmith95 said:
I live within walking distance of a commuter rail stop in Beverly. I ain't using it for weekend/evening events regularly unless they increase service to 2 trains per hour off peak.
Click to expand...
I live walking distance to a commuter rail station, too, and while I would like 30 minute headways off peak, the current hourly clock facing schedule is viable for the most part. But I also rarely use it, because I hate paying $6.50, when I can take a bus to the subway and pay $2.40 for the same, though slightly slower trip. I don't think more frequency would be as effective for some of the inner zones compared to better fare equity.
 
HenryAlan said:
I live walking distance to a commuter rail station, too, and while I would like 30 minute headways off peak, the current hourly clock facing schedule is viable for the most part. But I also rarely use it, because I hate paying $6.50, when I can take a bus to the subway and pay $2.40 for the same, though slightly slower trip. I don't think more frequency would be as effective for some of the inner zones compared to better fare equity.
Click to expand...

As the headways on the commuter rail get closer to rapid transit levels the fare differential becomes harder to explain. Braintree to South Station being $2.40 or $7.00 depending on which train you get on doesn't make much sense. Oh, and if you take a bus from your house to Braintree it's $2,40 for bus+Red or $8.70 for bus+CR (and the bus and CR have mostly incompatible fare media).

Did the T do passenger counts when Zones 1A, 1, and 2 were free during the Orange shutdown? It would be interesting to see how much ridership went up to places like Newton, Waltham, and Weymouth; I know I took the CR more during the shutdown than I usually do.

The high fares make sense when they're trying to allocate limited seats on peak trains (price might not be a good way to allocate limited public transit capacity, but it is a way), but discourage ridership on off-peak/reverse-peak trains that have way more seats than they need. Rail Vision has 10% higher ridership from a more rational fare structure.
 
bigeman312 said:
According to the Rail Vision Alternatives Analysis, the Greenbush Line can achieve 30-minute peak frequencies, and 60-minute off-peak frequencies, without any more infrastructure upgrades to the Old Colony Lines. That system is outlined in Alternative 2 (Regional Rail to Key Stations (Diesel)). That alternative calls for 8 tph per direction over the Old Colony Mainline.

Is that report to be believed? Are those frequencies achievable with just a fleet expansion alone?
Click to expand...
I think that would only be possible if all peak trains were running in the same direction
 
HenryAlan said:
I live walking distance to a commuter rail station, too, and while I would like 30 minute headways off peak, the current hourly clock facing schedule is viable for the most part. But I also rarely use it, because I hate paying $6.50, when I can take a bus to the subway and pay $2.40 for the same, though slightly slower trip. I don't think more frequency would be as effective for some of the inner zones compared to better fare equity.
Click to expand...

Just be thankful that you aren't in Worcester.. where it's $11. Not to mention the time involved.
 
WestMedford said:
They claim (and btw I’m very skeptical of their claim given the allure of the SOV) that the lack of peak frequency is what is holding them back. Well, both that and the CR cost (but that’s a different argument).
Click to expand...

At least speaking to my own life in a typical enough white-collar profession, most people I see work....slightly flexible hours. An issue/problem, late meeting, just being in the middle of something, making up a bit of time might have them staying 30min-1.5hrs longer than standard. Another day they might be heading out that much earlier than normal because of outside of work plans/obligations.

Morning arrivals vary less, but may have firmer starts. If your day starts with a 9AM meeting, and your train options are getting in at 8AM or 9AM, neither works very well.

The days of the firm workday where the whole office is arriving/departing together, or where individual employees are keeping the exact same hours/schedule day to day, are past in many offices.

---------------------

The busiest lines look to be running enough frequency that I'm skeptical frequency is the problem (at least for stations getting full service...which on things like the Worcester Line, many stations are not getting), but something like Fitchburg, Greenbush, etc? Once an hour in the peak windows is not enough to line up with how many people work. It doesn't take many days of losing an extra 45min at the end of a long workday waiting for the next train to not want to ride the CR.

I'd suggest there would be a major ridership bump for any line/station not currently achieving 30min peak-period service by getting there. (even 45min headways vs 60min would be significant). I'd probably define peak-period as something like 7:30-9:30 and 4:00-6:30
 
737900er said:
The high fares make sense when they're trying to allocate limited seats on peak trains (price might not be a good way to allocate limited public transit capacity, but it is a way), but discourage ridership on off-peak/reverse-peak trains that have way more seats than they need. Rail Vision has 10% higher ridership from a more rational fare structure.
Click to expand...
The success of the unlimited use weekend pass points the way for how they ought to be handling off peak. Price peak the way it is, if there is a need to manage demand. But the rest of the day, the commuter rail should be no more than $3.40, regardless of zone (subway fare plus $1 for more comfortable seats).
 
Tallguy said:
I think that would only be possible if all peak trains were running in the same direction
Click to expand...
Yeah...that's running up against the taillights to pack the peak direction fuller. It actually works against real Regional Rail because it would gut the reverse direction and make that very much non- clock facing. It's a kludge at best.
 
Seems to me RUR should:
1) Run more, shorter trains (more like the T's [4] cars = minimum length) [EDITED thanks to F-Line]
2) *IF* there is a peak-hour crowding problem on min-length "peak hour" trains, these would have/keep/resume distance-based peak pricing
3) Zone 1A & 1 should always cost the "transit fare";
4) Zone 2 through 10 should cost a flat $5, except peak crowding is a problem
5) Rhode Island fares would be up to Rhode Island; NH fares would probably also be higher.

Congestion pricing is a good thing. If there's congestion at rush hour we should price it.
I picture launching "Weekend prices all week long" (except on the trains that are today designated "rush" / no bikes in the schedule), and seeing what happens.

But if commuters are willing to shift to the new off-peak clockface service, we should encourage that with low flat fares on pre-rush, midday, post-rush weekday trains.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
Seems to me RUR should:
1) Run more, shorter trains (more like the T's 3cars = minimum length)
2) *IF* there is a peak-hour crowding problem on 3-car "peak hour" trains, these would have/keep/resume distance-based peak pricing
3) Zone 1A & 1 should always cost the "transit fare";
4) Zone 2 through 10 should cost a flat $5, except peak crowding is a problem
5) Rhode Island fares would be up to Rhode Island; NH fares would probably also be higher.

Congestion pricing is a good thing. If there's congestion at rush hour we should price it.
I picture launching "Weekend prices all week long" (except on the trains that are today designated "rush" / no bikes in the schedule), and seeing what happens.

But if commuters are willing to shift to the new off-peak clockface service, we should encourage that with low flat fares on pre-rush, midday, post-rush weekday trains.
Click to expand...
The approach also reflects the changing work habits where a commute for time in the office does necessarily mean all day in the office. I work hard to make my scheduled time in the office not require travel at the peak commuting times, and it generally works very well. People I need to overlap with are usually fine to coordinate around schedules between 10:30 and 2:30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top