Jump to content


- - - - -

Proposed Newport, RI - Fall River Rail Shuttle


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 MapmanNo1

MapmanNo1

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Location:Newport, RI

Posted 16 March 2006 - 07:06 PM

View Postmental757, on Mar 16 2006, 09:51 AM, said:

why not looking to re-use the old bridge for light rail only purporses??  Could be cheaper than re-designing the new one, building a new rail bridge and demolishing the old one...

If you're referencing the current Route 24 bridge: it's a bit wide for light rail, and doesn't link up to the right-of-way very well at all. It's designed for a four-lane divided highway. And besides, it's falling down. Rhode Island has one of - if not the - worst records for bridge maintenance in the nation.

If you're referencing the current rail bridge: the Coast Guard determined that it is a hazard to navigation, and it is. They want it torn down. Going through there on a boat is like kayaking through rapids. It's dangerous.  :shok:

I'm guessing that the hope is when/if the MBTA or other rail providers express interest in restarting passenger service between Newport and Fall River, then a new rail bridge will be constructed where the old one is being torn down. Eventually.  :unsure:

 

#22 mental757

mental757

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location:Kent County

Posted 17 March 2006 - 12:30 PM

View PostMapmanNo1, on Mar 16 2006, 08:06 PM, said:

If you're referencing the current Route 24 bridge: it's a bit wide for light rail, and doesn't link up to the right-of-way very well at all. It's designed for a four-lane divided highway. And besides, it's falling down. Rhode Island has one of - if not the - worst records for bridge maintenance in the nation.

If you're referencing the current rail bridge: the Coast Guard determined that it is a hazard to navigation, and it is. They want it torn down. Going through there on a boat is like kayaking through rapids. It's dangerous.  :shok:

I'm guessing that the hope is when/if the MBTA or other rail providers express interest in restarting passenger service between Newport and Fall River, then a new rail bridge will be constructed where the old one is being torn down. Eventually.  :unsure:


OK then, that kills my idea.  Didn't think the old Sakonnet river bridge was THAT bad.  Thanks for the insight!

#23 cloudship

cloudship

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 20 March 2006 - 09:05 PM

A question on the DMU's - are there any DMUs that would be able to operate on this line? To my knowledge, the only FRA compliant DMU is the Colorado Railcar, and that has some pretty bad operating costs associated with it. I love the idea of using them, but has anyone really come up with a viable DMU? And if not, doesn't this kind of kill the idea?

#24 pdxstreetcar

pdxstreetcar

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Location:Providence, RI

Posted 21 March 2006 - 12:43 AM

There are some diesel light rail cars which probably would work since the route would not be shared with freight rail.  For an example of these vehicles check out the Southern New Jersey Light Rail line between Trenton and Camden. I think the difference between diesel light rail and DMUs is the capacity, weight, heavy duty construction and crash-worthiness.

I would be interested how much more it would cost to improve the line to allow the MBTA commuter trains to run all the way into Newport avoiding a transfer in Fall River.

#25 MikeR

MikeR

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Location:Tiverton, RI

Posted 21 March 2006 - 06:05 AM

Hi all -

Any talk of upgrading the rail line to Newport has been squashed at the local level:

http://www.eastbayri...57067617553.php

There's a number of environmental and NIMBY groups locally that will simply do anything to stop any rail line expansion into Newport County.  There is a group on Aquidneck Island that wants to turn the rail line on the island into a bike path as well.

The process to convert the rail right-of-way to a bike path has been going on for some time now...rail line extension has no future in East Bay.

#26 Cotuit

Cotuit

    Megalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 13,396 posts
  • Location:State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Posted 21 March 2006 - 08:38 AM

View PostMikeR, on Mar 21 2006, 07:05 AM, said:

There's a number of environmental and NIMBY groups locally that will simply do anything to stop any rail line expansion into Newport County.

If they are against rail, then they are not environmentalists.

#27 pdxstreetcar

pdxstreetcar

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Location:Providence, RI

Posted 21 March 2006 - 08:41 PM

Im pretty sure the plan was for both rail and a trail along the rail corridor and that the trail was to be built first along side of the tracks.  The Newport Dinner Train and excursion train already use the tracks as far north as Portsmouth and maintain the track as far as the Sakonnet Rail Bridge.

Edited by pdxstreetcar, 21 March 2006 - 08:42 PM.


#28 Lone Ranger

Lone Ranger

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts
  • Location:Cranston, RI

Posted 02 April 2006 - 04:11 PM

View PostMikeR, on Mar 21 2006, 07:05 AM, said:

Hi all -

Any talk of upgrading the rail line to Newport has been squashed at the local level:

http://www.eastbayri...57067617553.php

There's a number of environmental and NIMBY groups locally that will simply do anything to stop any rail line expansion into Newport County.  There is a group on Aquidneck Island that wants to turn the rail line on the island into a bike path as well.

The process to convert the rail right-of-way to a bike path has been going on for some time now...rail line extension has no future in East Bay.

That's ridiculous of them.  The advantages of having a (transit) rail connection from Newport to Fall River to Providence to Boston etc would be tremendous.  

I assume they worry because they're afraid of loss of property (by eminent domain), loss of historical structures, loss of the character of the community, destruction of neighborhoods, loss of property value, etc.  This is the case, correct?  Because I doubt they oppose the rail proposal on its own merits.  On its own merits, it makes nothing but good sense.

But what if we were to eliminate those concerns?  What if we were to do in Newport what we already did in Providence, that is, put the rail lines underground?

In Newport, that is.  The existing rail lines in Middletown and Portsmouth would stay.  

I mean, what the heck, we've got a gigantic metal mole that just finished burrowing a 3-mile long tunnel under Providence.  We have future plans for this metal mole, too: it was mentioned that similar tunnels are planned for Pawtucket & Central Falls.  But what do we plan to do with this marvelous tool in the meantime?  Why, let it sit rusting, of course.

Today's ProJo ran this story about the imminent completion of the Providence tunnel.  The story included this line, which just happened to catch my eye:

Quote

In recent weeks, crews finished drilling the tunnel: at 3 miles long and 30 feet in diameter, it is bigger than the typical subway tunnel.   The crews cut up their 690-ton tunnel-boring machine and hoisted it out of the way. They also installed 16,000 concrete segments to line the tunnel. Each weighed 12,000 pounds.

Well?  

They could start the digging in the North End, about a mile from the Gateway Center and the heart of town.  The 138 interchange, through which the existing rail line happens to run, has lots of free space.  Most highway interchanges do.  But the 138 interchange has more than most because it has undergone a couple of (sloppy) re-designs.  You can still see the remnants of the old roads today.  That land is wasted, under the existing system.  Put it to use!

Putting the railroad underground eliminates the need for anyone to live next to a railroad (and to lose property value because of living next to a railroad).  It eliminates the need to uproot existing neighborhoods and destroy the historical buildings that give Newport its charm.  It keeps the noise & unsightliness of railroads out of sight.  Out of sight is out of mind.

Putting the railroad underground also allows us to pick & choose, so to speak, the best spot for the terminal.  Put the station somewhere in Brick Market Plaza, and try to do it iceberg-style.  The rail lines would be underground, why not try to put the station down there too?  Minimize the impact above-ground.  And that, once the building was complete, would allow the retail in Long Wharf Mall to continue to operate.  It's a great site.  It's within a mile of nearly the whole city (geographically) and probably 75% percent of Newport's residents.  The only parts of Newport that are more than a mile away from Washington Sq. are the North End, which is mostly commercial and light industrial, and the southern extremities of town, which are basically rural anyway.  Rural and gold course, that is.  Furthermore, Long Whf Mall/Washington Sq. is the heart of Newport's tourist sector.  And it's the center of pedestrian activity in town.  

The problem is money.  It would be expensive.  The city wouldn't be paying for it, obviously, nor would any private corporation.  Nor would the state.  The money would have to be federal.  Then again, stranger things have happened, and last I heard there was still a Chafee in the US Senate.  Oh, and a station in Long Whf Mall would be in easy walking distance from Chafee's Newport office.  :whistling:

#29 mental757

mental757

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location:Kent County

Posted 11 April 2007 - 09:23 AM

View PostMikeR, on Mar 21 2006, 07:05 AM, said:

Hi all -

Any talk of upgrading the rail line to Newport has been squashed at the local level:

http://www.eastbayri...57067617553.php

There's a number of environmental and NIMBY groups locally that will simply do anything to stop any rail line expansion into Newport County.  There is a group on Aquidneck Island that wants to turn the rail line on the island into a bike path as well.

The process to convert the rail right-of-way to a bike path has been going on for some time now...rail line extension has no future in East Bay.


according to that article, the bike path is for Sakonnet River Bridge NORTH to Fall River.  The rail proposal is from Newport (gateway) to the bridges on the northern tip of the island.  I've read the DOT plan cover to cover and the State's plan includes both rail and bike path along the entire corridor.  Rail on the stretch from the bridge to FR is a long ways away until they can build a rail bridge to reconnect the island to the ROW up to FR...

I'm trying to find out where the rail/bike path stands in terms of project status.  It has been included in the State's TIP (transporation improvement plan) which is the first step in becomming a reality.

regarding lonerangers post above - the report shows there is sufficient space along the existing ROW to accomodate both rail, the bike path, and associated infrastructure for both - parking, stations, etc.

Edited by mental757, 11 April 2007 - 09:25 AM.


#30 Gusterfell

Gusterfell

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts
  • Location:Newport, RI

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:07 PM

http://www.newportda...al/edit0412.txt

The Daily News is calling for a renewed push for rail service to Newport in conjunction with Deval Patrick's plan for commuter rail in SE Mass, and calls for federal funds to support the project.  

Quote

Rail service will attract new private investment and provide vital infrastructure improvements to spur economic development for the region - which, in turn, Patrick said, will help offset its costs.

Should Massachusetts work with its neighboring state of Rhode Island to connect that rail service to Tiverton and Aquidneck Island, there may be an opportunity to attract federal funding as well.

While we're on the topic of federal funding, that will be used in the $120 million project to build a new bridge over the Sakonnet River, linking Tiverton to Portsmouth. Given the developments in the Bay State, we hope consideration will be given to re-establishing rail connection as part of that project. The existing railroad swing bridge over the river was demolished earlier this year to make way for the new bridge.

Edited by Gusterfell, 12 April 2007 - 06:07 PM.


#31 mental757

mental757

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location:Kent County

Posted 13 April 2007 - 09:00 AM

this (the rail shuttle) needs to move forward.  It's a good thing in so many ways.  Plus it will be privately operated to start - very good for a State with no 'extra' money to do it right now...

#32 MapmanNo1

MapmanNo1

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Location:Newport, RI

Posted 13 April 2007 - 06:42 PM

View PostGusterfell, on Apr 12 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

http://www.newportda...al/edit0412.txt

The Daily News is calling for a renewed push for rail service to Newport in conjunction with Deval Patrick's plan for commuter rail in SE Mass, and calls for federal funds to support the project.
I agree with the Daily News editorial - expanding T service to the Island would be great, especially combined with the Dinner Train's seasonal Melville service. But transportation agencies in Massachusetts are facing a combined $19 billion deficit just to keep existing services running, so don't expect Deval's support to be enough for this project to happen this time around. It's a shame, really, because Fall River and New Bedford (much like Lowell and Worcester on the other sides of Greater Boston) really are diamonds in the rough that could become incredibly attractive places to live and work.

But here's something that bothered me in the Daily News editorial:

Quote

The idea of expanding rail service from Boston to Newport...could help make areas in otherwise rural Portsmouth and Tiverton more attractive for working individuals and families.

So, the editorial board that constantly rails against suburban sprawl and laments "Middletown-ization" just tacitly endorsed more residential sprawl in Portsmouth and Tiverton? Because that's what those towns' policies currently allow. There was no "smart growth" caveat attached to that sentence in the editorial.

#33 mental757

mental757

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location:Kent County

Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:58 AM

PROJO:  (4/27/07) "Off track but on time"

http://www.projo.com...OE.395aa01.html

#34 Gusterfell

Gusterfell

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts
  • Location:Newport, RI

Posted 13 September 2007 - 08:19 PM

^Thanks for posting that.  Over the summer I've been admiring these every time I go down Burma Rd, and I've ben wondering how on earth they got them onto the island.

Now to get the shuttle service running...

#35 mental757

mental757

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location:Kent County

Posted 06 March 2008 - 12:51 PM

PROJO:  "Commuter rail plan chugs along on Aquidneck Island"

http://www.projo.com...4.3c57318.html#

#36 mental757

mental757

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location:Kent County

Posted 10 April 2008 - 08:00 AM

PROJO:  "Editorial: The Aquidneck Express?"

http://www.projo.com...1.39d4c44.html#




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users