375 replies to this topic

[Recchia]

Cotuit, on Apr 29 2005, 08:27 AM, said:

I agree with getting RI it's own rail line. I think the T should run to T.F. Green with stops in Providence and Pawtucket in RI. Then RIPTA could run a more frequent local service from the West Kingston Amtrak station north to Attleboro (maybe as far north as Canton Jct.), with perhaps a spur to Woonsocket (this is a realistic plan, the fantasy would be to tie in a Fall River line somehow, but that is very difficult engineering wise).

I would envision stops in the Attleboros, Pawtucket, 2 or 3 between Pawtucket and Providence Station, several along Routes 6/10 (Atwells, Onlneyville, Brewery Parkade, Elmwood, Roger Williams Park), Park Ave. in Cranston, T.F. Green, East Greewich, Wickford Junction, A spur into Quonset Point, and a final stop at West Kingston, with express bus service from there, over the bay to Newport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I understand why the spur to Woonsocket is feasible (it could use the P&W  freight line alongside the Blackstone Bikeway correct?), but why would a Fall River line be tough, just cause theres no rail to connect there now? It'd be cool if it could follow 195, but then of course it would bypass Barrington, Warren and Bristol, not that they'd want it anyway.  I don't think the East Bay Bike Path ROW would be wide enough to use that either, it seems very narrow in some spots.  

Between Pawtucket Station and Providence Station, where do you think good stops could go (Smithfield Ave, Branch Ave?).  Not to digress here, but if a system like this were to be implemented, it'd be great if the state gave its workers some incentive to use it, or even an incentive to use RIPTA buses now.  The state is RI's largest employer (or so I've heard), so why not do something like a parking allowance for each employee and then parking fees to park on Capitol Hill, that way there'd be incentive in it for you to instead take RIPTA and keep that parking allowance for yourself.

[Cotuit]

Recchia, on Apr 29 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

Now I understand why the spur to Woonsocket is feasible (it could use the P&W  freight line alongside the Blackstone Bikeway correct?),

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct.

Recchia, on Apr 29 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

but why would a Fall River line be tough, just cause theres no rail to connect there now? It'd be cool if it could follow 195, but then of course it would bypass Barrington, Warren and Bristol, not that they'd want it anyway.  I don't think the East Bay Bike Path ROW would be wide enough to use that either, it seems very narrow in some spots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The best way to connect to Fall River would be to do so via Route 195. However there is no rail line along there, and there is no rail crossing of the Taunton River at Fall River. Any crossing would most likely have to be a high level crossing, it could be a lift span, but the Coast Guard doesn't really like those, especially since it would have to be down most of the time to provide for frequent service on the rail line. Also at the Providence end there is no real good way to connect it to the current Amtrak mainline at Providence station without major disruption in the North Main Street and Capital Center area. It could be done via the abandoned East Side tunnel, but the last stretch from the tunnel to Providence Station would be expensive, and terribly NIMBY-ed.

There is a connection that leaves north out of Fall River and joins the mainline at Attleboro, so trains could be sent north out of Providence and loop around to Fall River, but it's a very circuitous route which would have trouble competing with automobiles going direct via Route 195.

Rail could be sent down the East Bay bikepath, but the East Bay NIMBYs would go insane about city-folk invading them. There are also so many environmental and structural issues at that end (not the least of which would be a crossing of the mouth of Mt. Hope Bay), that it seems almost impossible. The most realistic option for Fall River rapid transit may be a BRT route along 195, it would have to be true BRT with with seperate travel lanes and rail like stations however, and that still poses routing obstacles at both the Providence and Fall River ends.

Recchia, on Apr 29 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

Between Pawtucket Station and Providence Station, where do you think good stops could go (Smithfield Ave, Branch Ave?).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and Charles. Any stops between Providence and Pawtucket should have the area zoned for high density residential development so that transit villages would be allowed to spring up around them. I could especially see air rights over the rail line being developed around Charles to make a very attractive residential and business area.

[Mij]

Cotuit, on Apr 29 2005, 11:20 AM, said:

Correct.
The best way to connect to Fall River would be to do so via Route 195. However there is no rail line along there, and there is no rail crossing of the Taunton River at Fall River. Any crossing would most likely have to be a high level crossing, it could be a lift span, but the Coast Guard doesn't really like those, especially since it would have to be down most of the time to provide for frequent service on the rail line. Also at the Providence end there is no real good way to connect it to the current Amtrak mainline at Providence station without major disruption in the North Main Street and Capital Center area. It could be done via the abandoned East Side tunnel, but the last stretch from the tunnel to Providence Station would be expensive, and terribly NIMBY-ed.

There is a connection that leaves north out of Fall River and joins the mainline at Attleboro, so trains could be sent north out of Providence and loop around to Fall River, but it's a very circuitous route which would have trouble competing with automobiles going direct via Route 195.

Rail could be sent down the East Bay bikepath, but the East Bay NIMBYs would go insane about city-folk invading them. There are also so many environmental and structural issues at that end (not the least of which would be a crossing of the mouth of Mt. Hope Bay), that it seems almost impossible. The most realistic option for Fall River rapid transit may be a BRT route along 195, it would have to be true BRT with with seperate travel lanes and rail like stations however, and that still poses routing obstacles at both the Providence and Fall River ends.
Yes, and Charles. Any stops between Providence and Pawtucket should have the area zoned for high density residential development so that transit villages would be allowed to spring up around them. I could especially see air rights over the rail line being developed around Charles to make a very attractive residential and business area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont understand why you would want to tear up the east bay bike path to place a rail system. The bike path an embedded part of that region. Not to menton often duplicated throughout the state. A rail system would never be allowed in barrington for sure, passing through warren would be hard as well only becouse warren is worse then providence when it come to a sprawl index. The best solution would be underground, or mono-rail along 195
Since both are unfesable i dont see them happening. Pitty. But those who no RI politics no that barrington is one of thois fights you just dont fight.

[Cotuit]

Mij, on Apr 29 2005, 11:45 AM, said:

I dont understand why you would want to tear up the east bay bike path to place a rail system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't. If we could somehow get over the NIMBY hurtles in the East Bay and build a rail line there, I would want it to run with the Bike Path. But I don't really think it's possible to do that, and we'd never get over the East Bay politics anyway. That's why I think 195 is the best route, but as I said, that provides huge engineering challenges.

[Mij]

Cotuit, on Apr 29 2005, 11:55 AM, said:

I wouldn't. If we could somehow get over the NIMBY hurtles in the East Bay and build a rail line there, I would want it to run with the Bike Path. But I don't really think it's possible to do that, and we'd never get over the East Bay politics anyway. That's why I think 195 is the best route, but as I said, that provides huge engineering challenges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see now, this is deffinitly a difficult issue consideing the magnatude of such an Idea. I think the biggest hurdle would be the issue of need. Im sure that most of the EB- NIMBY's would fight becouse they dont see the need. Just look at how far ripta penatrates, and the use of it. I wonder if there would be some sort line for the new ep waterfront district, the lines are there and it will be the bissgest thing since cresent park in these here parts??? Im getting way off topic...

[Recchia]

TOD's along the rail north of Providence Station would be a worthwhile experiment.  I'd love to see it happen so I could live there myself.  

It's too bad that East Bay is such impossible territory.  I remember reading about Interstate 895 trying to be built from the end of Route 37 in Warwick across the bay into Barrington, and the huge uproar that ended it.  Not that I am a fan of highway building AT all; it's just typical to see how they could stop that one but they couldn't stop 95 from tearing right through neighborhoods in Providence.  

You would think that East Bay commuters would want an alternative to I-195 traffic, if I had to sit in that everyday I'd seriously consider swimming to work across the bay.  

This may be a stupid question, but have they ever considered running an EAst Bay rapid ferry system, with stops all along the waterfronts, as a commuting option?  Or does the bay freeze up in winter too much to make this practical?

[Cotuit]

Recchia, on Apr 29 2005, 12:28 PM, said:

This may be a stupid question, but have they ever considered running an EAst Bay rapid ferry system, with stops all along the waterfronts, as a commuting option?  Or does the bay freeze up in winter too much to make this practical?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this would be a totally practical idea and would be fully in favour of it. New York and Boston both run year round commuter ferry services so the ice shouldn't be a problem. During extreme cold snaps ferries may be cancelled, when that happens ferry commuters can drive or take the bus.

Providence needs a good ferry pier outside the Hurricane Barrier though. If whe had a streetcar system running down Allens Avenue, a ferry pier could be located there.

[Mike D]

Recchia, on Apr 28 2005, 11:43 PM, said:

Couldn't agree more.  Something like the map that was posted on a forum here before (Providence Transit or something like that) would be excellent, with service to East Bay/Fall River, Blackstone Valley and down the Amtrak main line of course. 

Service to TF Green needs to hurry the heck up.  They've been talkin about it for how long now?  There's a thread on it here somewhere...  Hopefully this summer I can get up close to the project at my internship, last year they had one of the interns doing conceptual studies for commuter rail stops at Pawtucket and Kingston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it does. Newark and BWI airports have their rail stations. RIDOT needs to get their butts in gear and start building the TF Green Airport station. It's time.

And I think EMU/DMU service would be best for a RIPTA commuter rail line. I think with the combined MBTA/RIPTA rail service, we might be able to say goodbye to traffic jams on I-95 for good  

[Recchia]

Cotuit, on Apr 29 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

Providence needs a good ferry pier outside the Hurricane Barrier though. If whe had a streetcar system running down Allens Avenue, a ferry pier could be located there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Allens Ave is perfect for that, it has those tracks running right down the side of it doesn't it?  Plus you could connect it back to the Amtrak line using the P&W line that runs along 95 near RW Park.

[Mike D]

Recchia, on Apr 29 2005, 01:28 PM, said:

Allens Ave is perfect for that, it has those tracks running right down the side of it doesn't it?  Plus you could connect it back to the Amtrak line using the P&W line that runs along 95 near RW Park.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've felt Providence should have some kind of streetcar/light rail system. Allens Ave would be a good starter line.

[eltron]

Anyone know offhand what the smallest city with a light rail system (or even single line) is?

Portland is pretty small, but is much bigger than Providence. Wracking my brain, and I can't really come up with any small cities on the scale of Providence...

...actually, I've got it. Salt Lake City is pretty small. Any others?

[Cotuit]

Burlington, VT was the smallest city with a commuter rail line, then it went away. It may be coming back though.

Salt Lake City and Charlotte are two smallish cities with starter lines for metro rail lines. Lines designed to move people about the city as much as to bring them into the city. Jacksonville, FL also has it's Skyway system. I think all these cities are slightly larger than Providence though.

Richmond, VA has a light rail proposal. El Paso, TX has a streetcar proposal, though I'm not sure how serious it is. Lowell, MA has a proposal to extend their historic streetcar line (which currently is mostly a tourist attraction) to serve the commuter rail station and UMass.

[Recchia]

The Portland Metro isn't that much bigger than the Providence metro is it? And Salt Lake City?

[pdxstreetcar]

Sacramento has a fairly extensive light rail system yet is quite a small region, Sacramento itself is 420,000 (when the first line opened it was around 300,000).
Sacramento LRT map
Sacramento 20 year Vision Map

Buffalo also has light rail.

Salem, OR is seriously looking at a downtown streetcar identical to Portland's.

There are some small towns that have historic trolley lines but are mostly for tourists.

[Recchia]

Recchia, on May 2 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

The Portland Metro isn't that much bigger than the Providence metro is it? And Salt Lake City?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Providence is 1.58 million, Portlands only 1.93 million, and SLC is only 968 thousand.  We could definitely get in on some light rail.   2000 MSA's

[pdxstreetcar]

Metro Populations: http://en.wikipedia....s_by_population

#23 Denver Metro - 2,190,000 (Light Rail since 1994)
#24 Cleveland Metro - 2,140,000 (Light Rail since 1920s, Subway since 1955)
#26 Portland Metro - 1,920,000 (Light Rail since 1986)
#28 Sacramento Metro - 1,800,000 (Light Rail since 1987)
#29 San Jose Metro - 1,730,000 (Light Rail since 1987)
#33 Providence Metro - 1,580,000
#37 Las Vegas Metro - 1,370,000 (Monorail since 2004)
#38 Charlotte Metro - 1,330,000 (Light Rail under construction)
#39 New Orleans Metro  - 1,310,000 (Streetcar since 19th century)
#43 Buffalo Metro  - 1,170,000 (Light Rail since 1984)
#51 Salt Lake City Metro  - 970,000 (Light Rail since 1999)

[eltron]

pdxstreetcar, on May 2 2005, 11:20 AM, said:

Metro Populations: http://en.wikipedia....s_by_population

#23 Denver Metro - 2,190,000 (Light Rail since 1994)
#24 Cleveland Metro - 2,140,000 (Light Rail since 1920s, Subway since 1955)
#26 Portland Metro - 1,920,000 (Light Rail since 1986)
#28 Sacramento Metro - 1,800,000 (Light Rail since 1987)
#29 San Jose Metro - 1,730,000 (Light Rail since 1987)
#33 Providence Metro - 1,580,000
#37 Las Vegas Metro - 1,370,000 (Monorail since 2004)
#38 Charlotte Metro - 1,330,000 (Light Rail under construction)
#39 New Orleans Metro  - 1,310,000 (Streetcar since 19th century)
#43 Buffalo Metro  - 1,170,000 (Light Rail since 1984)
#51 Salt Lake City Metro  - 970,000 (Light Rail since 1999)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting...I was thinking mostly of actual municipal population v. metro pop. but it looks like Providence fits right in there. I wonder how relative density figures into these figures.

One advantage some of these cities have over Providence has on the Light Rail front is space, which in turn means lower cost of implementation...Right of Ways are easy to acguire because they just run the line down the middle of the ultra-wide streets (I'm thinking SLC in particular), a luxury we certainly don't have in Providence...

[Recchia]

Although Providence itself (and Pawtucket, Central Falls, EAST Cranston, East Providence, Woonsocket, etc.) are all dense enough, the rest of the metro area brings the overall Providence metro density down to little over 1,000/square mile.  But who says the light rail would have to serve those sprawly low density suburbs anyway.

[Cotuit]

Recchia, on May 2 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

Although Providence itself (and Pawtucket, Central Falls, EAST Cranston, East Providence, Woonsocket, etc.) are all dense enough, the rest of the metro area brings the overall Providence metro density down to little over 1,000/square mile.  But who says the light rail would have to serve those sprawly low density suburbs anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It could be a sort of hybrid service like Portland has, where the trolleys act as streetcars providing local service in the core, and wider spaced stops on seperate grades outside the core acting as a commuter service. The spawled outer areas have several things that would allow this, wider streets allowing for in street median trains that would move faster than ones running in traffic that would have to be downtown, and open areas that allow for ROW aquisition. Development can be focused around new suburban stations.

[Recchia]

Cotuit, on May 2 2005, 12:00 PM, said:

Development can be focused around new suburban stations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be nice, although don't you think they'll end up just putting in massive park and ride lots-that's what they want in Wickford Junction.  I don't understand why they wouldn't want to put some larger housing developments and shops within walking distance of the stations.  Recently they even shot down a plan to put in a bike path between Wickford itself and Wickford Junction station.  Odd.