SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby octr202 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:31 am

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:http://patch.com/massachusetts/stoughton/south-coast-rail-moving-ahead-middleboro-stoughton-plans

Both the Middleborough/Lakeville and Stoughton lines will be a part of the MBTA's South Coast Rail, the state's Department of Transportation announced Wednesday.

The plan has the MBTA using the Middleborough/Lakeville Commuter Rail line while they continue preliminary engineering design and permitting on the Stoughton line.

“Our administration is committed to providing the South Coast with commuter rail service as expeditiously and efficiently as possible,” Governor Charlie Baker said in a release. “Pursuing the Middleborough/Lakeville early action service while advancing the Stoughton Electric final phase service will facilitate commuter rail service to the region years earlier.”


Image


This just makes my head hurt.
Wondering if I'll see the Haverhill double-tracking finished before I retire...
Photo: Melbourne W7 No. 1019 on Route 78, Bridge & Church Streets, Richmond, Victoria. 10/21/2010
User avatar
octr202
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:43 am

johnpbarlow wrote:Google Maps Aerial view suggests there is a missing wye connector track in the SE quadrant at Cotley Jct?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cotley+River/@41.871931,-71.0621935,484m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e4f2d7773f53a9:0x94dba6f8b829a364!8m2!3d41.8833114!4d-71.0464339


That's not a problem, as they'd just reshape the customer siding as that leg of the wye. Might be a slight elevation difference to square, but that's a very easy fix.

No, the huge elephant in the room is skipping Middleboro station which can't be served on this routing, sacking the second-busiest Old Colony station and 25th busiest CR station with outright reduction in service. The slides from last Fall's presentation called for either skipping, reversing direction (HA!) at the station, or relocating the station downtown and abandoning all the lush and successful TOD that's grown up around the current M'boro station. So they are lying through their teeth that this can somehow be done by extending "existing" M'boro service. It's a naked hatchet job to South Shore and Cape transit...especially when they have to start expressing past Campello, Montello, Quincy bus terminal, etc. at peak to shoot for unattainable schedule margins.

And then there's the matter of the Dorchester and Quincy double-track fixes potentially costing a billion dollars in and of itself and providing little cost savings over a properly dieselized Stoughton Alternative that challenged the Army Corps' fraudulent Electrification Alternative EIS instead of taking it at face value.

And the fact that the M'boro option completely omits all planned Taunton stations and forces relocation of Taunton Depot south of Cotley. Where wetlands and abutting residences on the Berkley side of the town line introduces permitting and NIMBY issues while limiting the available park-and-ride capacity over the current Mozzone Blvd. site (at one of the only stations on the whole build whose projected boardings vs. projected parking capacity in the FEIR actually achieved real 1:1 utilization instead of gorging on near-pornographic levels of asphalt over-capacity). They said zilch about how they plan to accomplish this.



The truthiness is worse than ever with this update.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7237
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby ohalloranchris » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:52 am

Please forgive a dumb question, but I'm confused: Is the plan to build the line via Middleboro in the short term, then eventually build the Stoughton alternative with all the catenary bells & whistles? (Still no mention of how this will all get paid for!)
ohalloranchris
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby GP40MC1118 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:17 am

So disappointing this Middleboro option continues to live. Senator Pacheco in Taunton is
very skeptical of it and may sue. See the Taunton Gazette:

http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/2017 ... route-swap

Dave
GP40MC1118
 
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby bostontrainguy » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:14 am

It's all moot now . . .

Warren Endorses Hyperloop Plan

Mass Transit Magazine wrote:March 22--A proposal to locate a route for a new form of transportation between SouthCoast and Boston has been endorsed by U.S. Suen. Elizabeth Warren.

Warren recently sent a letter to Somerset Select Board member Holly McNamara in support of McNamara's plan to bring the Hyperloop -- a speedy system of travel for people and goods using pods, magnetic levitation propulsion and low-pressure tubes -- to the Northeast.


(Please note that this is not an April's Fools Joke)
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby BostonUrbEx » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:49 pm

bostontrainguy wrote:(Please note that this is not an April's Fools Joke)


That was honestly my first thought! This is incredibly infuriating. Almost as infuriating as the via Middleboro option, but the Middleboro debacle is more infuriating because it actually has a chance of happening.

Does anyone putting this project forward have even two brain cells to rub together?
User avatar
BostonUrbEx
 
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby craven » Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:58 pm

Wonder if Hyperloop would be equipped with P.T.C. (Positive Tube Control) ??

When someone "asked for more information", they mean get out of my office and quit wasting my time !
craven
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:18 am
Location: Natick, MA.

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby YamaOfParadise » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:49 pm

Baffling all around. The big thing about hyperloop, should it be feasible, is that it's a long distance technology. It's connecting cities 100mi+ at bare minimum away to make it begin to make sense economically; the most impact in new transportation is for connecting far off places first that are prohibitively far (or just far in travel time) to have large economic connections... then it trickles down to closer and closer things if feasible. Compare the hyperloop versus our typical modes of transportation it'll encroach on to what the steam railway initially provided compared to stagecoach. Eventually, did railways specialize into shorter distance operations? Sure, where it made sense, but by in and large that's something that came later after the intial boom in building railways - which in turn was after there were shorter proofs of concept first. I feel like they're advocating for skipping a few steps there, even if what they initially intended for was that "initial, shorter proofs of concept" that I just mentioned a sentence prior.
Consider contributing detailed railway data to OpenStreetMap for use in OpenRailwayMap!
User avatar
YamaOfParadise
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 5:36 pm
Location: Middlesex County, Connecticut

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby Rbts Stn » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:43 am

Can't wait for the Hyperloop! I've always wanted to feel like I'm a bank deposit from a remote drive-up window!

(never count Elon Musk out, btw)
User avatar
Rbts Stn
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:09 pm
Location: waiting for an "A" train to Watertown

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby highgreen215 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:17 pm

Something is wrong here. I would like to see a copy of the statement by Warren that she supports the Hyperloop for the South Coast. For instance, does she support the research or the finished project, even though no one knows what it would be like. The latter idea doesn't make sense.
highgreen215
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:43 pm
Location: Roslindale, Mass.

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby bostontrainguy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:59 pm

Rbts Stn wrote:Can't wait for the Hyperloop! I've always wanted to feel like I'm a bank deposit from a remote drive-up window!

(never count Elon Musk out, btw)


At the very least they should make the tubes transparent!
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby BandA » Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:28 am

Why don't they just aks the Army Corps to remove the electrification requirement? They could promise to run only Tier III or Tier IV, which they didn't own when the requirement was set. They could even swap the electrification requirement with other lines that are busier, or converting Needham to rabid-transit.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1899
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby CRail » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:42 am

I think the hypertube discussion has gotten the attention it deserves and then some. Perhaps a new thread or forum could be devoted to the concept, but it has little else to do with Commuter Rail to New Bedford and Fall River. This is, of course, unless this superchute replaces SouthCoast Rail altogher making this conversation, as BTG put it, moot!
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:59 am

BandA wrote:Why don't they just aks the Army Corps to remove the electrification requirement? They could promise to run only Tier III or Tier IV, which they didn't own when the requirement was set. They could even swap the electrification requirement with other lines that are busier, or converting Needham to rabid-transit.


The EIS has to cover the project area, so project substitutions aren't allowable.

That said, both the electrification requirement and the mile-long swamp trestle restricting it to single-track should be challenged vigorously as they are an unprecedented overreach by the Army Corps. The Corps routinely plays politics to pick winners and losers out of projects, and these kinds of onerous requirements were booby-trapped to ensure that it was defective by design and unable to be built.

In this case, the bust-down to single track with the concrete swamp trestle instead of a plain old embankment with culverts was the one that broke the schedule to defectiveness by design, and the electrification requirement quickly followed for the thinnest possible veneer of truthiness that the schedule meets were achievable on single-track. The meets aren't reasonable...even after the branch schedules were busted down to uselessness. But electric vs. diesel shaved 1-2 paltry minutes off the places where the meets are to occur (even though end-to-end there is virtually no schedule difference between them). Thus, electrics gave cover to the FEIR's schedule "working" even though in the real world the ops-brokenness of it all would make South Coast the day-in/day-out most oft-delayed commuter train in the whole Northeast (or the whole country). The Corps wouldn't have cared about electrics at all had they not already run out of rope on the schedule due to that single-tracking decision. Electrics = "The Emperor is wearing a teeny-tiny see-through thong" answer to the alternative of wearing nothing at all.


Route 24 dumps more pollutants into the same exact swamp from runoff and diesel particulates in one week than a double-track diesel passenger mainline with zero freight running a non-broken daily schedule would contribute in an entire year. So does I-495, whose graded embankment actually constrains the water flow around the southern end of the swamp while the ROW does not. In reality the pollutant ratio is even lower for double-track rail run at a non-broken schedule, because the swamp is at maximum distance between stations on perfectly flat tangent track. Those Tier III/IV engines would be sustaining full 79 MPH MAS through here in-and-out, with the engine fully accelerated and working at cruising notch by the time it crosses into the swamp. Those particulates aren't going to pile up in stagnant air like they do every time 24 is backed up well into Bridgewater by summer Cape traffic trying to get on 495 South. And that one-in-a-million chance that an HSP-46 blows an oil pan crossing through isn't going to dump the entire load in the swamp when stopping distance from 79 MPH takes the train out of harm's way by default (also: electrics leak oil and coolant too!!!).

As for that single-track trestle that destroys all mainline capacity, the state can challenge the veracity of that requirement with what they were allowed to do for the Greenbush Line build. Greenbush was covered by current federal landbanking law at maximum protection for rail reactivation only through MP 20 @ Cohasset station (East Braintree-Cohasset abandonment processed 1986). The final 7.5 miles to Greenbush was just like the Stoughton Line between Easton and Taunton: abandoned in the 60's, land ownership transacted to the state in the '73 Penn Central bankruptcy asset sale, slapped with a state-level 'proto'-landbanking designation to keep abutters out, but federally considered "all-new" upon reactivation and subject to the most stringent new-construction environmental regs.

The Army Corps had no problem greenlighting Greenbush to run on pre-existing double-track embankment in Scituate through several stretches of very environmentally sensitive tidal estuaries: Bound Brook + Gulf River (Cohasset Cove + Musquashcut Pond estuaries), Satuit Brook (Scituate Harbor estuaries), North River estuaries. Those areas are arguably a lot more sensitive than anything in the Stoughton ROW swamp because of the mission-critical function all that marshland plays for drainage of the South Shore's tide cycles, and indeed a lot more of the land Greenbush passes through is designated as protected conservation land on the map. Not only that, Scituate's estuaries had more incentive for protection from encroachment by new transportation corridors because of lack of any pre-existing state roads in the watershed. Route 3A (Cushing Hwy.) is the only state road within 2 miles of the shore, and its 2-lane Depression-era construction passed well west of most of Scituate's population density specifically so the Highway Dept. could carve out a new high-capacity trunkline that avoided the estuaries. Indeed the major demand for restoring commuter rail to Greenbush has a lot to do with the rail ROW being so much closer to the population density than 3A is, because that town-control street grid was incapable of funneling traffic effectively to a clogged 3A.

Yet...the Army Corps had no problem with running new-construction rail through the heart of Scituate's wetlands while it holds the less environmentally-sensitive Stoughton ROW to a higher standard because of the sins of MA 24, I-495, and several clean-cut 200 ft. wide swaths of power line ROW's already carved through it.



^^That's nuts.^^ We built Greenbush 10 years ago to the same EPA regs that the South Coast FEIR is following. None of the environmental considerations Cohasset-south contributed any blowout cost to the build because it was just re-use and upgrade of the same old 19th c. embankment the Old Colony built. The NIMBY bloat that made Greenbush a dirty word was all points north of Cohasset on the portion that was still seeing freight trains until 1984. Their claim that a mile-long single-track concrete trestle is necessary here...when the Stoughton ROW already has an embankment that only physically crosses one body of water (Black Brook)...is bunk. And their requirement that electrics run over it to hide the fact that they broke the schedule by single-tracking for a narrower trestle is quite literally fraudulent, because that pathetic paper schedule in the FEIR can't be executed in the real world.

They can challenge the FEIR's findings as bunk, throw the book at them for trying to cover up systemic brokenness with the fraudulent electrification requirement, and strenuously argue to the feds for a re-review. It's a couple Administrations later from the original work that went in the FEIR; the Corps' empire-building politics aren't going to be the same today as they were in the late-00's. The electrification cover-up for the schedule slashback is so far beyond the pale that it should be easy to defeat. And they have plenty of factual evidence to challenge the trestle vs. embankment decision using Greenbush as their case history. Defeat the trestle + electrification and $1B or greater instantaneously vanishes from the price tag, while contiguous double-track goes back on the table. That at least rolls it back from an apocryphal $3B to a merely-bad $2B...with better farebox recovery from a schedule that can be done over double track @ system-average frequency for a branched mainline making all local stops instead of the FEIR's system-worst frequency for any CR schedule and skip-stops of 2-4 stations at a time. From that instant reduction to $2B you just put it through a GLX-like financial review meat grinder to leave no stone unturned. Try to shave another $300M+ in pure bloat and graft off the top without compromising any essential revenue features, and pound it down to "good enough" price tag around $1.7B that wears its sunk costs well enough to not stick in anyone's craw. There most definitely is >$300M in pure naked bloat to target on a project this horrifically mismanaged. One example: parking diets. The FEIR based its parking lot capacity on Providence Line-level parking utilization, a flawed metric far overkill for what all other CR lines on the system average.


It can be done. But someone in state gov't has to be willing to go to the mat for it. They don't. Nobody truly wants to build this...they just want to participate in the graft of forever saying they're going to build it. If they actually wanted to build it, the brokenness of what the FEIR left them for a schedule would be a rallying cry to save the project just like umpteen judgment days GLX advocates had to triage...instead of something they just take at face value with a shrug then bury with more nonsense like this multiple-times disproven Middleboro Alternative. There is a political gameplan they can undertake to fix the Stoughton alignment and net something that's buildable in the real world. That they won't entertain any notion of pursuing all or part of that gameplan says all you need to know about their real commitment. The abstract IDEA of a South Coast Rail commitment is the graft that keeps on giving, not the figuring out of how to follow through on the commitment.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7237
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: SouthCoast Rail Discussion Thread

Postby ohalloranchris » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:22 am

Great detail as always F Line.

I agree on the politics- all this flag waving that trains will run, but no detail on how the billions of $ will be funded. This all remains a pipe dream until the cash is on the table. Furthermore, South Station needs to be expanded first to allow the additional capacity, so that's another couple billion $ standing in the way.
ohalloranchris
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CRail and 10 guests