Transit 2020

[mental757]

1. Can you point me to the article about the agreement with Amtrak to open these tracks to MBTA, I missed it and can't find in any new archive? I know that Chuckles Carcieri stated that there will be 8 trains, but there has been no mention of the agreement with Amtrak.

2. 30% of the funding not being there and being dependant on a bond issue is a small portion.

[FjmArch]

Its in here somewhere - I've posted just about every article regarding this project in this thread. Either way, I have been told by those working directly on the project, that the agreement with Amtrak has been finalized, so I guess you'll have to take my word for it!

Question 1 asks for, in part, 3.5 million RIDOT dollars/funds to get 20 million federal matching dollars/funds. If the bond fails, RIDOT will have to divert the 3.5 million from other projects to secure the federal funding for this project.

[mental757]

Just to clarify 1 point - the agreement with Amtrak that was recently finalized and signed is for train track usage, not train service. There is currenlty no plan for Amtrak to stop in Warwick, which has been stated in the press for quite some time now.

[09/21/38]

Amtrak stops at few train stations thru Ct and MA It only stops at major stations where the demand is there. Some of it's trains stop at the RT 128 commuter station in Canton which seems to resemble what they are planning to build in Warwick.

I think in time if the demand is there some of the Amtrak trains will stop at the Warwick station. The ones that stop now in Westerly and Kingston. I can see a need for this in the winter when planes are grounded during bad weather.

[FjmArch]

Just to clarify 1 point - the agreement with Amtrak that was recently finalized and signed is for train track usage, not train service. There is currenlty no plan for Amtrak to stop in Warwick, which has been stated in the press for quite some time now.

[runawayjim]

I think in time if the demand is there some of the Amtrak trains will stop at the Warwick station. The ones that stop now in Westerly and Kingston. I can see a need for this in the winter when planes are grounded during bad weather.

[Baines]

While I can understand your reasoning for thinking that, I don't know of any cities so close where Amtrak stops between NYC and Boston. CT probably has the closest stops with New Haven, Bridgeport, and Stamford and then with Old Saybrook and New London (there's about 20 miles between all these cities). None of those cities are as close as Warwick and Providence (which are about 10 miles apart). And if the MBTA works it right, the trains from Wickford can stop in Providence in time to make an Amtrak connection (or you go down to Kingston, where I hope we'll eventually see commuter rail service, whether it's Shoreline East or MBTA).

[Pseudo_Work]

While I can understand your reasoning for thinking that, I don't know of any cities so close where Amtrak stops between NYC and Boston. CT probably has the closest stops with New Haven, Bridgeport, and Stamford and then with Old Saybrook and New London (there's about 20 miles between all these cities). None of those cities are as close as Warwick and Providence (which are about 10 miles apart). And if the MBTA works it right, the trains from Wickford can stop in Providence in time to make an Amtrak connection (or you go down to Kingston, where I hope we'll eventually see commuter rail service, whether it's Shoreline East or MBTA).

[Cotuit]

Amtrak stops at Boston Back Bay and Boston South Station (and Boston North Station, but that is a disconnected line). I mean, I'm just saying, the demand is there. If there were enough demand through a combination of the airport and Park n Ride in Warwick, then Amtrak might consider it. I see Warwick as important more for its 128-like qualities than for its airport connection. 128 Station draws people from all up and down the 128 corridor (I used it when I lived in Waltham, people from Cape use it...), Warwick could similarly draw people there who don't want to drive (or heaven forbid! take a bus!) into Providence to park.

[citationx092]

I doubt you will see Acela stopping at TF Green AND providence - at first. But there are other factors. First, Amtrak only owns up to the Mass border. Inside Mass the state owns the track, and Amtrak needs rights to run over those tracks. If they were to prevent the MBTA from running trains, they would likely loose the ability to run Acela up to Boston. While not as busy as the Philly/NYC section, it is highly profitable. Also, this is one of the sections where true high-speeds are actually possible. So the high-speed train actually has a benefit here.

The airport will serve a fundamental need, though. Both as an alternative to as well as an overflow valve for Logan. Some airlines would actually be better off reducing their service to Logan and instead increasing service to TF Green with a train leg that is less than 40 minutes. Exactly who provides it will be up for discussion- Amtrak is as much a political pawn as it is a company - but I would eventually expect to see a high-speed short train service between Boston and Providence and TF Green, whether that be Acela or another train.

[citationx092]

And the Acela just hit another stupid person trespassing up in Mansfield, MA. Im sure the people of Warwick could find a way to not want the Acela stopping in their glorious town.

"Those damn electric trains pollute our super clean air too much and they make too much noise. Plus I'm a huge a-hole and enjoy trespassing on high speed train tracks"

[Garris]

To put it another way: there is an Amtrak station at Newark Airport in New Jersey and I don't think a third of all Acelas stop there, and that one of the busiest airports in the country. Why would it stop at our pitiful airport?

[runawayjim]

I've always wondered what the statistics are for the Newark Airport Amtrak station, especially given that NJ Transit lines stop there. Is that information public?

Speaking of Amtrak, I've never gotten why Amtrack needs to stop at South Station and Back Bay. The city's just not that big... The Connecticut stops always seemed excessive as well. Why New Haven and Old Saybrook? Why Stamford and Bridgeport? Those municipalities are quite close to one another and the later two are served by MetroNorth for connections. CT should just have Stamford, New Haven, and New London. Does anyone know the history? I'm presuming it was all politics...

Also, for all those reading the thread, Cotuit has a must read post at the Greater City: Providence blog that he should submit as an editorial to the Globe. Great analysis of our New England rail difficulties.

[mental757]

There are no direct rail lines (or even old ROWs) between Hartford and Providence. But otherwise, I agree with the idea of expanding rail in NE.

[runawayjim]

There are no direct rail lines (or even old ROWs) between Hartford and Providence. But otherwise, I agree with the idea of expanding rail in NE.

[Pseudo_Work]

Regardless of whether or not Hartford and Providence are connected via rail, it needs to be expanded throughout New England, offering service to pretty much anywhere (the major cities at the very least).

[09/21/38]

there is a rail line that comes from CT into Coventry and then west warwick. It now is a bike trail. that line used to then connect with a P&W line in Cranston. I remember seeing freight trains rolling thru W. Warwick up into the 80's.

Not a direct line to Hartford but it does exist.

[runawayjim]

Just so it's clear, I am not advocating for getting rid of the bike paths. Many of them are used by commuters and I find them to be important to communities. I'm talking about existing tracks that could still be used for trains.

[mental757]

Just to clarify: I am a HUGE backer of mass-transit (especially rail). Look through the commuter rail thread and note all the maps and ideas I have already posted).

I also am well aware of the Washington Seconday Line (as well as the Hope Branch). The Washington secondary was active when I grew up in West warwick.

The Washington secondary ROW, while not as direct as you'd like to link Providence and Hartford, would be the best bet. The ROW follows: Cranston, Warwick, West Warwick, Coventry, Oneco, Sterling, Moosup. It crosses under route 395 just south of Plainfield Road in Moosup and then travels southwest to Plainville. It then "dives" further south to Versailles (just north of Norwich) before swooping back up to Willimantic. From Willimantic, it heads Northwest up to Vernon, then down to Manchester and then west into Hartford. Huge swaths of this ROW have been abandoned, including: everything in RI all the way to Plainville and between Willimantic and Manchester, CT.

[mr2448]

Just to clarify: I am a HUGE backer of mass-transit (especially rail). Look through the commuter rail thread and note all the maps and ideas I have already posted).

I also am well aware of the Washington Seconday Line (as well as the Hope Branch). The Washington secondary was active when I grew up in West warwick.

The Washington secondary ROW, while not as direct as you'd like to link Providence and Hartford, would be the best bet. The ROW follows: Cranston, Warwick, West Warwick, Coventry, Oneco, Sterling, Moosup. It crosses under route 395 just south of Plainfield Road in Moosup and then travels southwest to Plainville. It then "dives" further south to Versailles (just north of Norwich) before swooping back up to Willimantic. From Willimantic, it heads Northwest up to Vernon, then down to Manchester and then west into Hartford. Huge swaths of this ROW have been abandoned, including: everything in RI all the way to Plainville and between Willimantic and Manchester, CT.

[frymasterspeck]

I don't know of any bike path's with heavy rail along side of it.

[runawayjim]

Blackstone Valley Bike Path follows P&W for quite a ways. Several miles go tracks-fence-bike path. I've never seen a train, although I did go under the underpass in CF near the prison just as the Acela went over head. Thought I'd have a heart attack! Utterly terrifying.

[Recchia]

Re: the rail to bikepath conversions, Massachusetts has the "railbanking" law that states that any of the former rail ROWs that were converted for bike path use must be converted back if necessary. A lot of them could accommodate both though.

[mental757]

I think that RI has the same rule regarding the ROWs.

I also think that the old rail tunnel to the East Bay Bike path (which used to be the Providence to Fall River line) would be utterly important to our metro area. Providence needs to be linked to Worcester (P&W line already in place and Providence to Woonsocket commuter rail being studied), Fall River/New Bedford (East Bay bike path ROW) and Hartford (Washington secondary to Willimantic) via rail.

[PBoyce79]

Wouldn't the most direct path to Hartford be along Route 6? Was the right of way ever purchased for the full highway? I have used the Washington secondary many times on my bike and with the many at Grade Crossings and how windy it is, would make it a pretty tuff sell. If they used the right of way for Route 6 and built it within the current highway section, it could have no at grade crossings, limited winding (although to get on Route 6 from the main line it would have a difficult turn in Olynville), and it could be built along with an extension of the highway section of route 6 to Willimantic at a combined cost. Similarly to how Denver built its Light rail within I-25, and widened the Highway at the same time. Although I don't know if that actually saved them money or not.