The stop just south of the border makes sense even as things are OTL' but is hamstrung by the lack of further connections. Both OTL and here I'd argue that the right move is a commuter or diesel light rail service running on existing tracks from SUrray down to White Rock. OTL the Fraser bridge and here the location and turns required to through run downtown are very problematic but a transfer to the Expo line wouldn't be awful. In either case, a similar service to Langley could save real money compared to a Skytrain extension as well, but all of this is really quite a separate discussion from the new Fraser crossing unless they are included from day one and links for through running are specifically designed into the TLs version of the new Port Mann bridge (which would be nice, but seems like too much. IMO if this happens in TL it happens later, and as a result of other traffic being diverted off the coastal route by the main project and a desire to expand Fraser Valley service at lower cost than Skytrain. Once again Amtrak would benefit quite a lot, but really have to be a secondary goal for the project.
Amtrak: The Road to Recovery
- Thread starter Devvy
- Start date
Devvy
Donor
2006....
2006 -2010 were the continuing years of update, modernisation and refit work that Amtrak had embarked upon earlier in the decade; large electrification works take years to bear fruit, and the initial project had kicked off in 2002. A key decision after a tender process was the selection of joint GE-Siemens bid for trains based upon the Siemens design of Velaro trains, duly constructed and customised for the American market by General Electric which would have a top speed of 186mph (300km/h). The high top speed would take advantage of the long straight lines available across the Mid-West. The first units would be delivered in late 2010.
A Siemens Velaro unit in Germany, upon which the new trains for Amtrak would be based.
In California, the greater amount of passengers forecast to use the San Francisco - Los Angeles link led to the selection of a bid from Bombardier-Alstom for a train based on the TGV Duplex; a high speed double decker train, offering around 500 seats per train. The two orders for trainsets would exhaust the last dime (and a few more) of Amtrak's grants following the tragedy of 9/11, and it would have to produce results to justify such a large grant as it received.
Minor improvements were the only innovations in this period, while major construction work continued on Amtrak's prime routes in California, Mid-West, and North-East, as well as the emerging Florida and Atlanta networks. The renovation of a disused rail alignment (in a combined Washington State & BC Province funding initiative) between Bellingham and Abbotsford to a single line, dedicated Cascadian line allowed services to stop at Bellingham before continuing on to use the high speed Canadian tracks in to Vancouver Pacific Central. The extension of overhead line equipment from Abbotsford Junction to Bellingham, and VIA's extremely cheap purchase of ex-BC Rail GMD GF6C electric locomotives (duly re-engineered to run from 25kV) allowed electric locomotives to operate the trains from Bellingham to Vancouver. The locomotive change would occur while the train sat in Bellingham station for 10 minutes, and allowed for an easier method of Canadian subsidy for the service; the electricity was provided at a cut rate for the service to use instead of an operating subsidy, and crewed by VIA engineers for the northernmost stretch. The link slashed the Bellingham - Vancouver travel time from over 2 hours to just under 60 minutes, and thus brought down the Vancouver - Seattle time to 3:05, a remarkable improvement. Most days there were 4 trains running between Vancouver (BC) and Portland (OR), with 2 of those extended to Eugene (OR). Although there was some call for a station just on the US side of the border to serve people from the Abbotsford area, Amtrak concluded there was insufficient demand to warrant a stop.
An electric GMD GF6C locomotive after BC Rail scrapped them but before VIA's purchase.
--------------------------
Notes: Kind of the last chronological update I'm planning. Looking at doing a series of articles "in" 2015 looking at each area in detail. Anyhow.....
Some nice suitable GF6C locomotives were sent for scrap at scrap metal value in OTL, so here VIA have taken them over for a similar cheap cheap price to haul the Cascadian service into Vancouver. Cheaper, and a much fairer way of Canada subsidising the service (as VIA ends up paying for powering the train in Canada).
Elsewhere, trains chosen for the Mid-West (Siemens Velaro - high top speed on the straighter alignments), nothing particularly controversial there. It's an off-the-shelf design that has proven effective in Germany. For California, I've picked out the TGV Duplex design - this is primarily based on rough OTL. The SNCF HSR analysis documents for California document them deciding that 500 seats per train is necessary with a couple of trains per hour.
2006 -2010 were the continuing years of update, modernisation and refit work that Amtrak had embarked upon earlier in the decade; large electrification works take years to bear fruit, and the initial project had kicked off in 2002. A key decision after a tender process was the selection of joint GE-Siemens bid for trains based upon the Siemens design of Velaro trains, duly constructed and customised for the American market by General Electric which would have a top speed of 186mph (300km/h). The high top speed would take advantage of the long straight lines available across the Mid-West. The first units would be delivered in late 2010.
A Siemens Velaro unit in Germany, upon which the new trains for Amtrak would be based.
In California, the greater amount of passengers forecast to use the San Francisco - Los Angeles link led to the selection of a bid from Bombardier-Alstom for a train based on the TGV Duplex; a high speed double decker train, offering around 500 seats per train. The two orders for trainsets would exhaust the last dime (and a few more) of Amtrak's grants following the tragedy of 9/11, and it would have to produce results to justify such a large grant as it received.
Minor improvements were the only innovations in this period, while major construction work continued on Amtrak's prime routes in California, Mid-West, and North-East, as well as the emerging Florida and Atlanta networks. The renovation of a disused rail alignment (in a combined Washington State & BC Province funding initiative) between Bellingham and Abbotsford to a single line, dedicated Cascadian line allowed services to stop at Bellingham before continuing on to use the high speed Canadian tracks in to Vancouver Pacific Central. The extension of overhead line equipment from Abbotsford Junction to Bellingham, and VIA's extremely cheap purchase of ex-BC Rail GMD GF6C electric locomotives (duly re-engineered to run from 25kV) allowed electric locomotives to operate the trains from Bellingham to Vancouver. The locomotive change would occur while the train sat in Bellingham station for 10 minutes, and allowed for an easier method of Canadian subsidy for the service; the electricity was provided at a cut rate for the service to use instead of an operating subsidy, and crewed by VIA engineers for the northernmost stretch. The link slashed the Bellingham - Vancouver travel time from over 2 hours to just under 60 minutes, and thus brought down the Vancouver - Seattle time to 3:05, a remarkable improvement. Most days there were 4 trains running between Vancouver (BC) and Portland (OR), with 2 of those extended to Eugene (OR). Although there was some call for a station just on the US side of the border to serve people from the Abbotsford area, Amtrak concluded there was insufficient demand to warrant a stop.
An electric GMD GF6C locomotive after BC Rail scrapped them but before VIA's purchase.
--------------------------
Notes: Kind of the last chronological update I'm planning. Looking at doing a series of articles "in" 2015 looking at each area in detail. Anyhow.....
Some nice suitable GF6C locomotives were sent for scrap at scrap metal value in OTL, so here VIA have taken them over for a similar cheap cheap price to haul the Cascadian service into Vancouver. Cheaper, and a much fairer way of Canada subsidising the service (as VIA ends up paying for powering the train in Canada).
Elsewhere, trains chosen for the Mid-West (Siemens Velaro - high top speed on the straighter alignments), nothing particularly controversial there. It's an off-the-shelf design that has proven effective in Germany. For California, I've picked out the TGV Duplex design - this is primarily based on rough OTL. The SNCF HSR analysis documents for California document them deciding that 500 seats per train is necessary with a couple of trains per hour.
Good choice. What about N700 Shinkansen's? Think they'll make an appearance in America ITTL?
Yup... Still loving this. Something tells me you'd be good at an ISOT which resulted in a rail-based uberwank. 
Just send him back to the UK in 1965, instant 'The 12:08 Service To...' timeline or better.Yup... Still loving this. Something tells me you'd be good at an ISOT which resulted in a rail-based uberwank.
Phew
The locking problems with the tilt mechanism were a problem but not the biggest one, that has to go to the use of Alco-MLW engines. The proper solution for that would have been Pratt and Whitney Canada gas turbines for open-track speeds and GM diesels for slow-speed work, using a CODOG arrangement. This would have allowed lighter weight, better fuel efficiency and higher speeds all in one.
The toughest places for such an alignment would be the section just to the east of Oshawa and the CN line split from the lakeshore route between Liverpool Road and Whites Road in Pickering, the former because of room issues and the latter because of the overhead crossover. The alignment from Port Union to Guildwood station would be pretty marginal for four-track operation, but its possible, and if you are building the system for electric trains, you could get GO Transit to get in on the cost of doing so in return for allowing the Lakeshore West, Lakeshore East and Kitchener lines (their three busiest by passenger loads) to get the electrification, which would make faster service on those routes a matter of more-powerful electric locomotives. (This is where those regeared and rewired GF6Cs might be useful templates, or one could use General Electric E60s for the same purpose.) GO's passenger cars are all equipped with disc brakes and locomotives with dynamic braking, so acceleration is the main drawback for more frequent service.
You mentioned something smart in your comments about the main line along the Water Level Route. If you take my proposed route, having the Kingston-Gananoque-Brockville-Cornwall section built would allow a line from Oswego via Watertown to Gananoque, crossing the border at the Thousand Islands area (thus almost certainly giving you increased tourist traffic) and then hooking up to the main lines, either east to Montreal and Quebec City or west to Kingston, then further west to Toronto or northeast to Ottawa. Also could make possible some traffic by soldiers to and from Fort Drum, which is along the way.
Building a 125-mph line with TGV Reseau units is foolish unless you are intending to go the full boogie and run the entire corridor, and remember that its not just Ottawa paying for it. Once the Montreal-Ottawa service proves successful (and keeps Mirabel operational), the demands to go to Toronto and Quebec City will get loud. Once you have Toronto hooked up, engineering is stupid easy as power concerns west of Toronto are non-existent (huge nuclear power plants at Pickering and Goderich) and there are multiple choices of right of way. My route would also allow a Toronto-Niagara Falls-Buffalo service to connect to your HSR on the Water Level Route. The only real building challenge on my proposed route is the Kingston-Smiths Falls section, as that part of Ontario has very little population aside from cottages and tourist towns, the largest of them are populations of 20,000 or so. The real benefit of that line is for weekend travelers from Toronto or Ottawa.
Well it wasn't so much to make a link with "real speed", but a link with "reasonable speed" that was segregated from freight and therefore meant that trains using it could go the full advertised speed rather then being caught by freight trains and obviously thereby allowing full-day use. I am intending it to be use by the Amtrak Cascadian service, but this is a Canadian funded project, so service by the US to the US will come second priority. I could see a link being built from Bellingham to just west of Abbotsford to link in; Pacific Central Station has it's US Border Preclearance (and reverse Canadian Border for arriving passengers). It will all tie together eventually!
Agreed, but at the time of tendering, these were for trains to run Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, hence the high speed and eventual overkill when the route was shortened. Also it's not the actual Reseau; but one based on the design. I'd imagine a locally engineered franchised version of it (let's say by Bombardier!
Also, I specifically mentioned about the couplings, as a way for the trains to be hauled by diesel engine. But I imagined that VIA would probably continue running direct Toronto-Montreal services (avoiding Ottawa), thereby negating the need. People from the Lake Ontario shore aren't going to be bothered about getting to Mirabel directly, which is about the only advantage it would offer them. Maybe just one or two special named hauled Reseau sets from Toronto to Montreal via Ottawa.
In the short term, what you have here is very logical, though using diesels to pull HSR coaches is clearly a short-term arrangement, and you'd probably end up with a locomotive on each end to make the arrangement work, as the GE P42DC units used by VIA on this route are probably not powerful enough on their own to make that arrangement work, particularly since the units would have to provide head-end power, which reduces a P42DC's power output to 3550 hp, before any HEP demands. With a unit on each end, this works.
As VIA bought said units in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I don't think its a huge stretch for them (and probably Amtrak too) to look for a ballsier Genesis unit, or re-power existing P42s with GEVO-16 engines, which would improve emissions and kick their power output from 4250 hp to 6250 hp, though with a fuel consumption penalty (though cylinder deactivation could handle that problem). These units would be capable of handling the high-speeders with diesel power units.
Devvy
Donor
I've been wanting to incorporate Shinkansen, just not really had a clear chance to. SNCF were very successful in getting European companies to the forefront areas of HSR in the USA in OTL. The SNCF report is the only decent report into HSR I have for California, so I stuck with the TGV in honour.
Personally I think the 500-series trains look the coolest, but hey ho
Yup... Still loving this. Something tells me you'd be good at an ISOT which resulted in a rail-based uberwank.
Just send him back to the UK in 1965, instant 'The 12:08 Service To...' timeline or better.
Haha, glad to see you're still enjoying it!
Duly noted - I have been looking at AMT and GOT running a de facto HSR commuter service in order to provide extra trains on the tracks and improve the business case.
Maybe a slight misunderstanding there. When I said "through Toronto", I meant appearing on the other side of the Toronto, not "through to Toronto" as in extending to Toronto itself. I perfectly agree that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is the core route that must be completed. I was only expressing a thought that VIAFast won't appear on the other side of Toronto (ie. running to Windsor or Niagara) for a while yet.
An interesting idea, but GO's stations are too close together to make that work effectively. I can see an GO Express service at higher speeds from the larger communities on the edges of the system (Hamilton, Kitchener, Barrie, Oshawa), but trying to go HSR speeds on the main GO network would be a waste of money.
I see, that makes more sense, but it still has the problem I mentioned before. There is lots of market west of Toronto, and aside from Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton VIA's strongest markets are those running west from Toronto. Going Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal as a first step is perfectly wise, but in the not-too-much-longer term you'll want to go the entire corridor, particularly if Amtrak is building a midwestern HSR network. The Wolverine (Chicago-Detroit) is one of Amtrak's stronger routes and in your TL has had fast trains on it since the 1970s, so I would bet of the Midwestern routes it would be one of the first to get real HSR trains, which would in itself provide the impetus to get VIA to close the gap between Toronto and Detroit. It would also be a help to Amtrak in Detroit, as there is no way their station in New Center is up to HSR work. Rebuilding Michigan Central would be a must, and that would be a very pricey proposition, but if another company is building a line to Detroit, it makes it possible to split the cost of the station rebuild, and VIA, having done major rebuilds on Pacific Station and Toronto Union, knows a things or two about that. The HSR lines and a nicely-rebuilt Michigan Central Station could be a great big boost to the city of Detroit, too.
Eh? Wrong thread per chance or am I completely misunderstanding?
Nevermind, I already did one for the wiki article about your TL.
Devvy
Donor
My thought was truncating the normal "slow" Lakeshore East service to Rouge Hill or so, and put platforms on the HSR line for stations at:
- Pickering
- Ajax
- Whitby
- Oshawa West (OTL Oshawa)
- Oshawa East (somewhere around 35th / Wilson Road)
- Bowmanville (bottom of 14th / Liberty Street)
If we go on a 2tph clockface service for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, then we have 30min gaps in which to run. Bowmanville to Pickering is 35km (22 miles for me...). A 90mph commuter train (EMU, so decent acceleration) could stop at those stations, and then run express into Toronto Union inside the 30minute window.
I see, that makes more sense, but it still has the problem I mentioned before. There is lots of market west of Toronto, and aside from Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton VIA's strongest markets are those running west from Toronto. Going Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal as a first step is perfectly wise, but in the not-too-much-longer term you'll want to go the entire corridor, particularly if Amtrak is building a midwestern HSR network. The Wolverine (Chicago-Detroit) is one of Amtrak's stronger routes and in your TL has had fast trains on it since the 1970s, so I would bet of the Midwestern routes it would be one of the first to get real HSR trains, which would in itself provide the impetus to get VIA to close the gap between Toronto and Detroit. It would also be a help to Amtrak in Detroit, as there is no way their station in New Center is up to HSR work. Rebuilding Michigan Central would be a must, and that would be a very pricey proposition, but if another company is building a line to Detroit, it makes it possible to split the cost of the station rebuild, and VIA, having done major rebuilds on Pacific Station and Toronto Union, knows a things or two about that. The HSR lines and a nicely-rebuilt Michigan Central Station could be a great big boost to the city of Detroit, too.
<cough>
. Yes, that's basically exactly what I have planned for the future, although it will take some time before it gets to Detroit. I researched Detroit's Michigan Central station a while back. As the Border Pre-Clearance Treaty (both in this TL and OTL) is applicable both ways (although Canada hasn't bothered exercising it's options in OTL), I was planning on a Canadian Pre-Clearance / US Arrivals in Michigan Central itself.Ah cool - didn't realise that was being done! Thanks
Devvy
Donor
Cheers
Sadly, Amtrak just isn't going to pay any attention to Alaska. The population is far too low and scattered to warrant passenger rail transport. The Bering Strait wouldn't be touched by Amtrak with a barge pole - it's about 2,500 miles from the crossing area to Seattle - the closest US large city. Let alone on the Russian side. If it existed, you might get a once weekly service service from the US to China (Beijing) or something - but nowhere remotely near warranting Amtrak to go hunting.
The Bering Strait Crossing is a good idea, but not for passenger transport realistically. It'd be fruitful for freight railways though - it'd be provide decent competition against the sealiners at the least, and may well be cheaper. It'd also be significantly faster.
Devvy
Donor
2015: Analysing New England
By 2015, the New England Commuter Rail system spreads across New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, with the city of Boston lying at the epicentre. The commuter lines radiate like spokes on a wheel, bringing in commuters and travellers from all the areas surrounding Boston via a mixture of electric and diesel trains.
A map of rail services in New England (centred on Boston)
Red: Amtrak Commuter Service across the New England Tri-State area
Black: Other Amtrak services, as noted
All of the services operated through Boston are operated by electric multiple units, to eliminate the problems of smoke and pollution in a tunnel environment. This means that commuter services from Woonsocket, Warwick (via Providence), Fall River & New Bedford operate though Boston centre (stopping at Boston South, Aquarium and Boston North stations in the city centre zone) to Concord, Rochester, Portsmouth and Rockport. Electric North East Network services also operate through Boston (although skipping the Aquarium city centre station) from New York JFK Airport to Portland (Maine). Other electric North East Network services (from Washington, DC) still terminate at Boston South station, along with diesel operated services from Worcester, Scituate, Plymouth and Buzzard's Bay. Diesel services from Fitchburg still operate into Boston North station. A summer-only holiday service operates from Boston South to Cape Cod, terminating at Harwich.
In future, a new link, along the route of a long disused rail link, is planned. It will branch off the Portsmouth/Rockport line at Chelsea, before crossing the Chelsea River, having an interchange with Wood Island Blue Line station, and then running underground to stations serving Boston Logan Airport (International Terminal and Terminal B). On the south side of Boston, the Old Colony Lines to Scituate, Plymouth and Buzzard's Bay would be electrified, with services then running through from there to Boston Logan Airport, giving a combined frequent service from Boston centre to the airport. This is planned for the 2020s.
An MBTA Commuter service at North Scituate station
Express North East Network services (mostly from either Newport News or Norfolk, but all via Washington DC) operate into Boston South station where they terminate. The continual improvements have yielded a time from Boston to New York in under 3 hours, and a slower North East Network service operates directly to New York JFK Airport with additional stops (passengers needing New York City changing on to Amtrak's PATH service at New Rochelle or commuter services from Connecticut.
-----------------
Notes: The commuter lines are roughly similar to OTL. The branches from the NEN main line are electrified, and similar to the north, in order to allow electric trains operating through the Boston CrossLink (services branded "Crosslink"? ). Other things to note; a similar service to the OTL "CapeFlyer", running in summer-time months - although the commuter service reaches to Buzzard's Bay. The coastal line to Newburyport still reaches to Portsmouth, as the line was never constrained by a state-run operating authority. The commuter line to Rochester - well the line north to Portland is used by the JFK-Portland service, so might as well make use of it for a slower commuter service. Likewise, commuter service still reaches to Nashua, Manchester & Concord in New Hampshire.
I'm not sure on the exact terminology used in the US (I think that the "Tri-State" area usually applies to New Jersey, New York & Connecticut?). But here, with the "combined" Rhode Island/Massachusetts/New Hampshire area, it's now known as the New England Tri-State area now.
By 2015, the New England Commuter Rail system spreads across New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, with the city of Boston lying at the epicentre. The commuter lines radiate like spokes on a wheel, bringing in commuters and travellers from all the areas surrounding Boston via a mixture of electric and diesel trains.
A map of rail services in New England (centred on Boston)
Red: Amtrak Commuter Service across the New England Tri-State area
Black: Other Amtrak services, as noted
All of the services operated through Boston are operated by electric multiple units, to eliminate the problems of smoke and pollution in a tunnel environment. This means that commuter services from Woonsocket, Warwick (via Providence), Fall River & New Bedford operate though Boston centre (stopping at Boston South, Aquarium and Boston North stations in the city centre zone) to Concord, Rochester, Portsmouth and Rockport. Electric North East Network services also operate through Boston (although skipping the Aquarium city centre station) from New York JFK Airport to Portland (Maine). Other electric North East Network services (from Washington, DC) still terminate at Boston South station, along with diesel operated services from Worcester, Scituate, Plymouth and Buzzard's Bay. Diesel services from Fitchburg still operate into Boston North station. A summer-only holiday service operates from Boston South to Cape Cod, terminating at Harwich.
In future, a new link, along the route of a long disused rail link, is planned. It will branch off the Portsmouth/Rockport line at Chelsea, before crossing the Chelsea River, having an interchange with Wood Island Blue Line station, and then running underground to stations serving Boston Logan Airport (International Terminal and Terminal B). On the south side of Boston, the Old Colony Lines to Scituate, Plymouth and Buzzard's Bay would be electrified, with services then running through from there to Boston Logan Airport, giving a combined frequent service from Boston centre to the airport. This is planned for the 2020s.
An MBTA Commuter service at North Scituate station
Express North East Network services (mostly from either Newport News or Norfolk, but all via Washington DC) operate into Boston South station where they terminate. The continual improvements have yielded a time from Boston to New York in under 3 hours, and a slower North East Network service operates directly to New York JFK Airport with additional stops (passengers needing New York City changing on to Amtrak's PATH service at New Rochelle or commuter services from Connecticut.
-----------------
Notes: The commuter lines are roughly similar to OTL. The branches from the NEN main line are electrified, and similar to the north, in order to allow electric trains operating through the Boston CrossLink (services branded "Crosslink"?
). Other things to note; a similar service to the OTL "CapeFlyer", running in summer-time months - although the commuter service reaches to Buzzard's Bay. The coastal line to Newburyport still reaches to Portsmouth, as the line was never constrained by a state-run operating authority. The commuter line to Rochester - well the line north to Portland is used by the JFK-Portland service, so might as well make use of it for a slower commuter service. Likewise, commuter service still reaches to Nashua, Manchester & Concord in New Hampshire.I'm not sure on the exact terminology used in the US (I think that the "Tri-State" area usually applies to New Jersey, New York & Connecticut?). But here, with the "combined" Rhode Island/Massachusetts/New Hampshire area, it's now known as the New England Tri-State area now.
Devvy
Donor
So, similar but improved? Given the context ITTL, that's plausible. Nice!
Diesel services are very similar. The major changes are the extended lengths of several of the commuter branches...and the electrified nature.
Oh, and the Boston Rail Link / "Crosslink"
Very nice, Devvy. Very nice. I like that you've also got service to Cape Cod, even if it is summer only.
Now, if you want, Amtrak could also start local summer service to Narragansett Pier for those of us Rhode Islanders (and then some) who want to go to that area (as well as Galilee, Point Judith, etc.) but who are deterred by the huge amount of vehicle traffic going down that way via (US) Route 1 and (RI) Route 4. You've got the Commuter Rail on that map going as far south as T.F. Green Airport and East Greenwich; why not extend it further?
Speaking of which - T.F Green Airport has long had capacity problems, which means that every time they want to expand (like the current expansion going on now) you get the opposition of residents, where their houses have been built around the airport facility and then some. Now, in 1974, the Navy base at Quonset Point was decommissioned. Since the 1980s, the area is now home to a Rhode Island Air National Guard base, a general aviation airport, and since the early 1990s has been redeveloped into an industrial park. By 2015, Route 403 has been converted into an expressway/HQDC. As a spur, it could be possible to transform Quonset Point into a fully-functioning airport with scheduled service to relieve T.F. Green Airport (which, in turn, is one of the designated relief airports for Logan). Quonset Point and T.F. Green Airport could be linked by an express rail service within the existing commuter rail framework. (I will leave it to you to come up with the name.)
That's my only suggestions so far.
Now, if you want, Amtrak could also start local summer service to Narragansett Pier for those of us Rhode Islanders (and then some
) who want to go to that area (as well as Galilee, Point Judith, etc.) but who are deterred by the huge amount of vehicle traffic going down that way via (US) Route 1 and (RI) Route 4. You've got the Commuter Rail on that map going as far south as T.F. Green Airport and East Greenwich; why not extend it further?Speaking of which - T.F Green Airport has long had capacity problems, which means that every time they want to expand (like the current expansion going on now) you get the opposition of residents, where their houses have been built around the airport facility and then some. Now, in 1974, the Navy base at Quonset Point was decommissioned. Since the 1980s, the area is now home to a Rhode Island Air National Guard base, a general aviation airport, and since the early 1990s has been redeveloped into an industrial park. By 2015, Route 403 has been converted into an expressway/HQDC. As a spur, it could be possible to transform Quonset Point into a fully-functioning airport with scheduled service to relieve T.F. Green Airport (which, in turn, is one of the designated relief airports for Logan). Quonset Point and T.F. Green Airport could be linked by an express rail service within the existing commuter rail framework. (I will leave it to you to come up with the name.)
That's my only suggestions so far.