Conceptual designs of potential decarbonized Commuter Rail trains provided by Stadler, Alstom and Siemens in response to MBTA RFIs, as shown in an MBTA board presentation on the Fairmount Line decarbonization pilot. Images courtesy of the MBTA

Planners and developers alike have dreamed of an MBTA commuter rail network where trains come almost as frequently as some subway lines since the late 2010s.

The T’s leadership even embraced the concept in February 2020, and lawmakers hitched part of the region’s housing future to it with the 2021 MBTA Communities law.

But as the T launches the most concrete planning effort to make the idea a reality, officials say there likely won’t be enough money available for the kind of thorough-going, subway-like transformation that transit advocates first pitched in 2018 – at least not at first.

“We’re going to have to make hard choices, and we want to engage with people” about what aspects of regional rail the T should prioritize, said Lynsey Heffernan, the MBTA’s chief of policy and strategic planning.

Public engagement efforts begin this month, Heffernan said in an interview last week, and will also public meetings and private meetings with state housing officials and other “stakeholders.” The agency hasn’t set up meetings with any of the major real estate trade groups, but “would welcome” their input, she said.

A final plan to modernize the commuter rail system will be released this summer.

Train Transformation Key to Housing Goals

MBTA leaders see their agency’s future as tied to electrifying the slow, diesel-powered commuter rail network where trains come roughly once an hour on many lines, or about once every half-hour during rush hour.

“There is an aspiration – a resources-unconstrained answer is a system that offers bidirectional frequencies of at least 30 minutes in the core and 60 minutes in outlying areas,” said Michael Muller, executive director of the MBTA’s commuter rail system.

More frequent trains that are easier to board and are more attractive, and stations that are easier to reach without a car, will help restore riders to the T, Heffernan said. Despite big drops in the number of office workers commuting into downtown Boston, ridership on the T’s suburban rail network is basically back to pre-pandemic levels, but subway and bus ridership – and therefore transit fares – haven’t yet recovered.

This kind of faster, semi-frequent service at all times of day, will also help the state meet its housing goals, Heffernan said, by making it more feasible to develop housing around stations – further boosting the transit agency’s finances.

But stringing overhead wires to power trains, buying fleets of new electric trains and building new stations and other infrastructure will be a multi-billion-dollar project, and it’s not clear where that money will come from.

It’s unclear whether the traditional funder for major mass-transit infrastructure – the federal government – will be willing to fund a project like this under President Donald Trump. The Trump administration, for example, cancelled a $327 million grant to the state to build a new commuter rail station in Allston and smooth out a dangerous curve in Interstate 90 while unlocking land for new housing and other real estate developments.

That’s forcing the T to develop options for the Healey administration and the Legislature about how the agency can still try to move forward.

“We believe we know what it takes to drive ridership, but I don’t believe that all of the money for all of the things are going to materialize in the short term,” Heffernan said.

Advocates Worry: Does T Have Enough Spine?

As the T tries to map out its future, though, transit advocates point to a worrisome sign: when it tried to add an extra track on MBTA property in Reading to let it run more trains between that town and downtown Boston, a group of residents revolted. The T quietly withdrew the project last fall rather than fight.

Muller, the head of commuter rail, characterized the decision as an attempt to find a different solution that still let the T unlock more frequent connections between Reading and Boston.

“What we learned from the community isn’t that ‘We don’t want more service,’ but ‘We don’t want a turnaround track in that spot,’” he said.

It was also the first time his team had run into that kind of resistance to better transit infrastructure, Muller said.

“Up to this point, we’d gotten a lot of support from the communities where we’d tried to make improvements,” he said.

And even if adding overhead wires and substations to power new, electric trains – which type of train will actually work is still a matter of hot debate between the T and outside experts – makes those trains quieter, they’ll still be a change that many suburbs have never seen before. That’s historically been a recipe for a challenging approvals process.

Muller said that his team now knows it can’t expect a welcome mat in every suburb where it proposes upgrades.

“The key takeaway is we’re going to need to be more thoughtful and proactive with communities,” he said.

For Heffernan, the commuter rail modernization plan, and the public debate that comes after it, will also help. The hope, she said, is to get residents, state legislators and local leaders all on the same page about the bigger goals and “complexities” needed to bring the transit system into the future.