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.
The MBTA's Fiscal Oversight Board recommended the agency electrify commuter rail back in 2019 and start with a Providence Line pilot. But progress on that goal has been scant despite an unprecedented influx of federal infrastructure money since the start of the pandemic.
The DOT's grant application cites documents indicating the federal government expected the MBTA commuter rail system would be electrified back in 1995.
Electrification is a matter of "when" rather than "if." "When" could still be a decade or further from now, but there's growing pressure to get on it sooner rather than later. Electrification means improved performance, lower maintenance, and less environmental impact. The MBTA runs numerous old (and very old) locomotives and coaches which will need replacement soon. They really don't want to invest money in diesel equipment which might be obsolete by the time it comes online. The question is whether they go with longstanding electric multiple unit (EMU) technology which has been used in systems all over the world (including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc.) or they try a relatively new, relatively unproven technology like battery EMUs (BEMUs) which are more expensive, heavier, and don't have the same track record. However, they would allow electric implementation across all lines (rather than just Providence) from the start without the overhead wire infrastructure. Going with cheaper EMUs would require each line to install overhead wires and new maintenance facilities which is expensive and time consuming. Providence, however, needs minimal changes (so long as an agreement can be made with Amtrak to share the infrastructure - easier said than done).
As a cynic, my guess is we're still 10 years from seeing electric trains on the Providence line (and longer for other lines). But even with the T's struggles and focus on fixes rather than expansions, this could easily be pitched as a needed update to old/out of date infrastructure and equipment.
10 years is a pipe dream imho. I see zero sense of urgency in this matter. Bottom line is that MA voters set even lower standards for their politicians than RI voters do, at this point (like, they literally write a blank check while taking it in the rear from these scoundrels). And this will have to get through both state houses.
10 years is a pipe dream imho. I see zero sense of urgency in this matter. Bottom line is that MA voters set even lower standards for their politicians than RI voters do, at this point (like, they literally write a blank check while taking it in the rear from these scoundrels). And this will have to get through both state houses.
Rhode Island is what happens to Liberals without money.
As if there were a state in the US where the people think their politicians are doing a fabulous job.
No, but they might have higher expectations as well.
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.
