Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But is it worse than driving? No. Literally the first quote is "Driving was 'out of the question,' he said. 'It could be two hours each way.'” Nobody here has denied the frustration of the Commuter Rail which is much slower than it should be, and often breaks down. But it's still faster than driving in most cases. And that's why it makes sense for many people. Furthermore, there's a ton of room to improve rail service and make it much faster, there's very little room to improve automobile traffic flow on highways. In fact, the best way to ease car traffic is to improve transit frequency, reliability, and access which would encourage fewer people to drive.
Electrified rail is an obvious winner. It just needs to happen and PVD-BOS makes sense to launch it since the infrastructure is in place. For starters, the trains are faster, quieter, and cheaper to operated. EMU vehicles allow for much more efficient off-peak options (you can run one or two cars instead of having a massive locomotive pulling long trainsets that will be empty). The issue with electrification which wasn't mentioned in the article is that if you don't do it all at once (a massive and expensive undertaking), you'll then have essentially two separate fleets of vehicles (gas and electric), each of which only works on a portion of the track (though diesel could still work on the electric routes). The second big issue is that the overhead power lines required for electric rail will likely bring out the NIMBY crowd in force.
But is it worse than driving? No. Literally the first quote is "Driving was 'out of the question,' he said. 'It could be two hours each way.'” Nobody here has denied the frustration of the Commuter Rail which is much slower than it should be, and often breaks down. But it's still faster than driving in most cases. And that's why it makes sense for many people. Furthermore, there's a ton of room to improve rail service and make it much faster, there's very little room to improve automobile traffic flow on highways. In fact, the best way to ease car traffic is to improve transit frequency, reliability, and access which would encourage fewer people to drive.
Electrified rail is an obvious winner. It just needs to happen and PVD-BOS makes sense to launch it since the infrastructure is in place. For starters, the trains are faster, quieter, and cheaper to operated. EMU vehicles allow for much more efficient off-peak options (you can run one or two cars instead of having a massive locomotive pulling long trainsets that will be empty). The issue with electrification which wasn't mentioned in the article is that if you don't do it all at once (a massive and expensive undertaking), you'll then have essentially two separate fleets of vehicles (gas and electric), each of which only works on a portion of the track (though diesel could still work on the electric routes). The second big issue is that the overhead power lines required for electric rail will likely bring out the NIMBY crowd in force.
The entire Providence line is electrified. That's not the issue.
The issue is the proposal calls for these trains to run direct from Providence to route 128, Back Bay and South Station. That would absolutely irk the hell out of those of us who board at stations between Providence and route 128.
But is it worse than driving? No. Literally the first quote is "Driving was 'out of the question,' he said. 'It could be two hours each way.'” Nobody here has denied the frustration of the Commuter Rail which is much slower than it should be, and often breaks down. But it's still faster than driving in most cases. And that's why it makes sense for many people. Furthermore, there's a ton of room to improve rail service and make it much faster, there's very little room to improve automobile traffic flow on highways. In fact, the best way to ease car traffic is to improve transit frequency, reliability, and access which would encourage fewer people to drive.
Electrified rail is an obvious winner. It just needs to happen and PVD-BOS makes sense to launch it since the infrastructure is in place. For starters, the trains are faster, quieter, and cheaper to operated. EMU vehicles allow for much more efficient off-peak options (you can run one or two cars instead of having a massive locomotive pulling long trainsets that will be empty). The issue with electrification which wasn't mentioned in the article is that if you don't do it all at once (a massive and expensive undertaking), you'll then have essentially two separate fleets of vehicles (gas and electric), each of which only works on a portion of the track (though diesel could still work on the electric routes). The second big issue is that the overhead power lines required for electric rail will likely bring out the NIMBY crowd in force.
I don't think you'll see investment in rail infrastructure with all the, in my opinion, overly optimistic timelines for fully autonomous vehicles. I'm a fan of rail, but autonomous driving, paired with shared ownership, would absolutely kill it in the U.S.
The entire Providence line is electrified. That's not the issue.
The issue is the proposal calls for these trains to run direct from Providence to route 128, Back Bay and South Station. That would absolutely irk the hell out of those of us who board at stations between Providence and route 128.
No. It has has the electrified infrastructure in place (because Amtrak installed it for their electrified service which uses the same tracks), it's not electrified service for the MBTA. They're still using the same old, slow, stinky diesel locomotives on Providence that they're using on on every other line. So it is an issue because the line has all of the limitations that every other line has. If they want to start running electrified trains (the article mentions discussions with Amtrak about leasing locomotives for a pilot), they'll either have to overhaul the entire system aside from the PVD line, or they'll have to have separate equipment just for the PVD line (which is expensive/not great for backups if there are issues).
In most places where there's express service (not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination) it's not done at the expense of local service. The only way it ever happens on the PVD line is if there are capacity increases at South Station (major project requiring the acquisition of the adjacent post office facility) which allow for more frequent trains. So instead of one train every half hour at peak, you can run 2 per half our (one every 15 minutes) - one local, and one express. If it's ever proposed at the expense local stops in between, then yeah, it's an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
I don't think you'll see investment in rail infrastructure with all the, in my opinion, overly optimistic timelines for fully autonomous vehicles. I'm a fan of rail, but autonomous driving, paired with shared ownership, would absolutely kill it in the U.S.
This is definitely an interesting piece of the discussion and you could be right if it gets closer to reality soon. I agree they're overly optimistic predictions. We'll see how the next 5 or so years go. Honestly, if there's a recession that hits and fewer people are driving to work, traffic will also ease up a bit which will hurt/kill the appetite for rail investment as well. I think autonomous driving will also significantly improve traffic which is really crippled by the human element. It'll be far more efficient. But I don't know that it'll kill demand for rail service altogether. Parking expenses, operating costs, etc. will always be a factor.
The entire Providence line is electrified. That's not the issue.
The issue is the proposal calls for these trains to run direct from Providence to route 128, Back Bay and South Station. That would absolutely irk the hell out of those of us who board at stations between Providence and route 128.
This - express trains from PVD to 128, BB, and SS would benefit RI residents for the most part. It does nothing to ease the commute of MA residents.
The only way it ever happens on the PVD line is if there are capacity increases at South Station (major project requiring the acquisition of the adjacent post office facility) which allow for more frequent trains. So instead of one train every half hour at peak, you can run 2 per half our (one every 15 minutes) - one local, and one express. If it's ever proposed at the expense local stops in between, then yeah, it's an issue.
I don't follow.
The Worcester line during peak runs every 40 minutes. The express train runs every 40 minutes, the local train runs 10 minutes later every 40 minutes.
Are you saying that there isn't enough lines at South Station to accommodate Worcester twice per 40 minutes, the Franklin line every 20 minutes, all the other lines, and an Amtrak or two all leaving between 4:00 and 6:00? If so, I agree
I don't follow.
The Worcester line during peak runs every 40 minutes. The express train runs every 40 minutes, the local train runs 10 minutes later every 40 minutes.
Are you saying that there isn't enough lines at South Station to accommodate Worcester twice per 40 minutes, the Franklin line every 20 minutes, all the other lines, and an Amtrak or two all leaving between 4:00 and 6:00? If so, I agree
Yes, I'm saying that South Station as currently constituted cannot handle more frequent rail service than what what we currently operate at peak. So in order to add express service to PVD without adversely impacting or cutting local service, you need to increase capacity at South Station to handle more trains. So instead of just having the current schedule which has a 3:25pm departure and a 3:55pm departure, you could have 3:25pm local, 3:40pm express, and 3:55pm local. There's zero negative impact to local service, and you add express service. But with the current setup at South Station, you couldn't at an additional departure because of the capacity issues.
This can be done by adding platforms on the site of the USPS facility next door, and/or this could be done with a North/South Rail Link which allows trains to pass through South Station instead of terminating there and having to to reverse course (thus slowing flow in/out of the station).
This can be done by adding platforms on the site of the USPS facility next door, and/or this could be done with a North/South Rail Link which allows trains to pass through South Station instead of terminating there and having to to reverse course (thus slowing flow in/out of the station).
It can also be done by adding an upper deck to South Station.
I think the long term goal needs to be to make autonomous EMU. Lots of short high frequency express trains. At South Station, you just get on the autonomous car for your destination station. The EMU separates as it approaches the station and the cars forward of it continue on without stopping. Once you knock the labor cost out of it by making them autonomous, they're practical for frequent 24x7 service.
It can also be done by adding an upper deck to South Station.
I think the long term goal needs to be to make autonomous EMU. Lots of short high frequency express trains. At South Station, you just get on the autonomous car for your destination station. The EMU separates as it approaches the station and the cars forward of it continue on without stopping. Once you knock the labor cost out of it by making them autonomous, they're practical for frequent 24x7 service.
Maybe, but that seems unlikely to me. I've read before that the approach angles to South Station would be too steep. Plus the bus terminal is already above the current platforms and I'm not sure where you'd relocate it. Not sure how it would work if South Station Tower ever gets moving either.
Definitely agree on that front. All of our trains should be autonomous (inc. subway lines). And I think that for many of the non-urban lines, a one or two car EMU would be all that's needed during off-peak hours. I've been on EMUs in Japan that separate depending on the stop/destination. It's pretty impressive. 6 car trains that split into two trains - a 2 and a 4 car set. The smaller traveling out to more rural/remote stops. I'd love to see something similar here, but it feels like that's fantasyland territory to me given our current system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
