Boston’s Fairmount Line Could Be a National Model for Commuter Rail, But It’s Not There Yet

For commuter rail to work in urban neighborhoods, transit agencies have to rethink fares, schedules, and integration with local transit. The MBTA still has work to do to get all these elements right on the Fairmount Line.

Photo: Pi.1415926535/Wikimedia Commons
Photo: Pi.1415926535/Wikimedia Commons

Commuter rail in the United States mostly caters to affluent suburbanites who commute to the city center. Even though these lines pass through working class city neighborhoods that stand to benefit enormously from better transit, the service they provide passes those communities by. It doesn’t have to be that way.

In Boston, the MBTA is starting to do things differently on a commuter rail line that serves one of the poorest parts of the region. But so far this remains a partial transformation that has yet to deliver the full benefits of good rapid transit. It’s important to understand what the MBTA has done right — and what it’s still doing wrong — if we want to maximize the potential of commuter lines not only in Boston but in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago as well.

The Fairmount Line, about nine miles long, is contained entirely within the city of Boston. It mostly passes through Dorchester, a low-income, mostly non-white neighborhood. Starting at the end of the aughts, the MBTA began a program of investment in the line.

Fares were lowered to match those on the T. The commuter trains do not accept the CharlieCard smart card system, but passengers can buy paper tickets for the same fare. Only the terminus, Readville, outside of Dorchester, charges higher fares.

Three infill stations have opened, with a fourth under construction. Trains also run more often, but still max out at headways of 40-50 minutes at rush hour and every hour off-peak. The line is faster than taking a bus and connecting to the subway, but it lacks the frequency of buses, which come every five or eight minutes during peak hours and every 10 or 12 minutes off-peak.

The MBTA also aggressively marketed the line in Dorchester, where commuter rail is viewed through the lens of an inverted class stigma. Neighborhood residents, disproportionately black and poor, perceived commuter rail as the domain of rich white suburbanites. The MBTA worked with community organizations, such as the Greater Four Corners Coalition, which had been pushing for better service on the Fairmount Line since the 1990s, to change perceptions.

As a result, ridership has tripled since 2012, from about 800 per weekday to about 2,300. In 2012, the line had the lowest overall ridership of all Boston commuter lines, as well as the lowest ridership per route-mile. Today its ridership per route-mile is close to the systemwide average.

Don’t get carried away though. Given its location, the Fairmount Line should be doing better than average. Marketing alone, of course, cannot get people to ride transit, and despite the recent upgrades, there’s still a lot of room to improve service.

The Boston Foundation’s report on how to further improve the Fairmount Line notes that integration with local transit remains poor, despite the fare equalization. The fact that CharlieCard monthly passes are not accepted and only one transfer per trip is free imposes additional costs on some riders. Local buses connect to the T but not to commuter rail stations, which are not always located at convenient nodes in the street network.

There are plans to increase frequency and run peak trains every 15 minutes, but no timetable or funding for such an upgrade. It’s also critically important to run more frequent off-peak service, since only 60 percent of the line’s ridership is at the peak — far below the MBTA commuter rail average of about 80 percent.

One of the reasons the MBTA’s plans to increase frequency are stuck is controversy over rolling stock. The state wants to buy diesel multiple units (DMUs), which accelerate faster than locomotive-pulled trains.

There are no plans to electrify the Fairmount Line, even though electric trains would be faster, DMUs have tended to come at a high price for American transit agencies, and one of the Greater Four Corners Coalition’s original complaints was diesel fumes from trains (which higher frequency would only make worse).

When the final infill station opens in 2019, the one-way end-to-end trip time will be 31 minutes. DMUs could do the same trip in 25-26 minutes. Electric trains, like the ones used on the Long Island Railroad, Metro-North, and any number of modern regional rail services around the world, could do it in 18-19 minutes. They accelerate faster, can run slightly faster on curves, and require less schedule padding since they break down less often. But the state has not been willing to commit to investment in electrification.

If Massachusetts ever does run frequent rail on the Fairmount Line, it could set a national example for similar commuter rail lines. These lines could also use investment in higher frequency, fare integration, and marketing to make them an appealing service for low-income riders.

In Philadelphia, SEPTA Regional Rail has been electrified since the 1930s, and opened a city center tunnel in the 1980s, enabling trains to through-run instead of terminating. But frequency remains low and the fare system is separate from the subway, trolleys, and buses.

Even though several branches are contained entirely within the city, ridership is weak. The Chestnut Hill East and Chestnut Hill West lines each have 5,500 weekday riders. They parallel the third busiest bus route in the city, the 23, which has 16,500 riders. That makes sense when the bus charges $2 for a ride and regional rail charges $4.75.

In Chicago, commuter rail lines are run as separate fiefs. The one that would most benefit from fare integration and added frequency is Metra Electric, which serves South Side communities far from the L. Chicago’s street grid makes it easy for buses to connect to stations, and Metra Electric is a six-track corridor with closely-spaced local stations and express trains.

When the Illinois Central owned and operated the lines there was decent local frequency, every 30 minutes per branch. But after Metra took over, it slashed frequency to once an hour. With this frequency and no fare integration with buses, ridership within Chicago is weak, even as suburban ridership is strong. Local activist Mike Payne has been calling for fare integration and higher frequency, but to no avail.

Commuter rail’s history as a mode of transportation for middle-class suburbanites has made transit agencies reluctant to make it useful for low-income riders even when it passes through low-income neighborhoods. As a result, commuter rail operations create a disparate impact: service for middle-class suburbs, pollution for low-income city neighborhoods. Cities and transit agencies need to fix this.

It’s too early to call the Fairmount Line a national model, but the MBTA has taken the first necessary steps to turn commuter rail into useful urban transit. It managed to greatly expand service in the last five years, and achieved ridership growth to show for it. What Boston and other cities need to do is go much further and make the service useful for everyone, regardless of social class.

64 thoughts on Boston’s Fairmount Line Could Be a National Model for Commuter Rail, But It’s Not There Yet

  1. Sam. You’re an anonymous commenter. You want to brag about sharing articles with your class and make personal attacks, share your full name and where you teach. Not “this has nothing to do with Vermont, lol.”

    You want to tell me you know of a recent $200,000/car new DMU order, name it. (Note: new, not second-hand RDCs or whatever.) Or else I will assume you are bullshitting and are probably a sockpuppet of the other people in this thread who all argue in the exact same style.

    The “are you ever wrong?” question is trollish. If I give you an example, then I’m clearly wrong about many things and not to be trusted. If I don’t, then I’m clearly a know-it-all. I’m not interested in this. I’m interested in discussing comparative rolling stock costs and performance, an issue on which you have not provided a single true fact.

  2. tl;dr: I’m aware of most of these issues, and didn’t put them in the article for length reasons.

    1. Electricity is still cheaper than fuel. The Nippon Sharyo factsheet claims 2 car-mpg (, which is horrific.

    2. Was that in the SMART specs? I looked a bit and only found a reference for the UP Express (, on a commuter rail system that is actually electrifying. I ask about the SMART specs because Nippon Sharyo beat several competing DMUs on cost.

    3. Do cafe cars really cost more than coaches? I think Amtrak pays the same for either kind, but don’t quote me on this. But anyway, here’s a cafe-free example:

    Eight GTWs for $58 million; per standard US-length car this is nearly $5 million. (Hans-Joachim Zierke asked around 15-ish years ago and was told the GTWs get 4-5 mpg.) You may notice that Stadler was the only bidder. But that’s part of my point – the American DMU market is thin, leading to high procurement cost. The EMU market is thicker because cities can piggyback on New York and Philadelphia’s orders.

    4. The bulk of GLX cost is adding new track, modifying bridges to accommodate the wider right-of-way, and building stations in a constrained right-of-way. The Fairmount plans do not include any new track or ROW widening. Unless there’s a plan to run the bulk of Franklin Line service through to Fairmount, the bridge over the NEC can even stay single-track for a while.

  3. P.S. The first two links have a close-paren that the automated link converter folded into the URL; you’ll need to do a bit of copy-paste to get them right. The third link is fine.

  4. I would look into the specs a little bit further. Its off-site off-line material. I also believe Streetsblog has covered this topic before. In regards to the GLX you made some valid points. However, the Fairmount also had a track improvement + bridge replacement component costing around $200 million. Even if you took the most liberal Fairmount numbers ($200 million for corridor, $300 for trains) and matched them with the most conservative GLX numbers ($1 billion state minus the $1 billion federal match minus the oversized stations minus the greenway) You’re talking about a 2:1 funding discrepancy. However, this is Boston. Racism goes hand in hand with baseball, seafood, and boating. Look back at the 1987 Orange Line move. This isn’t new, but important.

  5. I agree in principle, but in terms of commuting, the bulk of resident employment destinations are all in Center City. The rail stations also intercept a greater swath of dense residential commuter areas than Germantown commercial. But it’s not surprising why many would want to save $50 on monthly passes by tolerating a slow overcrowded bus rather than the train. In the end this should be a question of utilizing resources efficiently and finding the easiest way to increase marginal capacity for SEPTA, and not continuing backwards fare and operating practices because that’s the way they’ve always done it. With two subpar transit alternatives, taking a car will only seem more and more attractive.

  6. Personally I support prioritization.

    (1) Regularized clockface schedules have low operating cost and high ridership benefits.
    (2) Electrification has relatively low capital cost and high operating cost and ridership and environmental benefits.
    (3) Through-running (North South Rail Link) has highish capital cost but extremely high ridership and operating cost benefits.

    (4) Far rural extensions (South Coast Rail) have high capital costs, high operating costs, and low ridership benefits. I’m not per se opposed to them…. if we’ve done all the other more cost-effective stuff first…which we haven’t…

  7. In that case, regional rail/express subway lines, line reorganization (send the Blue to Riverside via Copley, Huntington Ave.; Green to Seaport/Southie/Mattapan, etc.), Orange Line to W Roxbury, an urban ring, etc. (even Red Line to Arlington and Blue Line to Chelsea/Needham) take higher priority than South Coast Rail.

    South Coast Rail costs $600-$750B/rider. Even if costs were reduced by a factor of 10, that would still be bad transit (based on US standards). I think there are far more cost-effective ways to help the South Coast than SCR.

  8. Alon Levy is a barista in Paris. No formal transportation experience. No formal transportation knowledge. Read his blogs with caution

  9. I don’t know what his current occupation is, but I do get the sense that he has no formal training or job experience in the field.

  10. As the new and improved Fairmont line brings gentrification to yet another swath of Boston it will be interesting to see if the new demographic sees some of the promises fulfilled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



What American Commuter Rail Can Learn From Paris

In the U.S., regional rail is mostly good for one type of trip: the commute. But in Paris, regional rail is oriented toward all types of trips, and people ride throughout the day, not just at rush hour. One key to success is running frequent, predictable service all day long.

Commuter Rail and Inequality Within Transit Systems

In theory, transit is a big melting pot where people from all walks of life rub elbows. That may be close to the truth in some places, but in others the reality is often quite different. People riding city buses to work probably aren’t as affluent as the people riding the commuter rail line into downtown. Social […]

Despite Problems, Boston’s MBTA Should Continue to Expand

2nd inbound orange line track to Boston isn’t even cleared of snow between Oak Grove & Malden! #MBTApocalypse #MBTA — Cory Thomas (@coryt3) February 11, 2015 Cross posted from the Frontier Group. As you may have heard, we’ve been experiencing a few public transportation problems here in Boston of late. Record-smashing snowfall, coupled with extreme cold […]
At Bourg-la-Reine, outside Paris, the rail station is surrounded by dense, mixed-use development and walkable streets. Image: Google Maps

What American Commuter Rail Can Learn From Paris, Part 2

In Europe it's common for regional rail systems to get ridership comparable to that of the subway in the central city. But in America, this is unheard of. One reason for the discrepancy is land use: American commuter rail stations are typically surrounded by parking, while in the Paris region you see a different pattern with ample development next to suburban train stations.

What If “Commuter Rail” Was for Everyone, Not Just 9-to-5 Commuters?

Rhode Island has been investing in commuter rail — long distance service connecting Providence to Boston and towns in between. But lackluster ridership at a new park-and-ride rail station at the end of the line (by a Walmart!) is sapping support for much more useful investments, reports Sandy Johnston at Itinerant Urbanist. Anti-rail critics are piling on. The libertarian Rhode Island Center […]