roy_mustang76
New member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2019
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 103
So, we are trying to get data on NS destinations and modes now. We know that a significant percentage take OL,GL and shuttles to Kendall and MGH. That is a key question. If say, 80percent (I know, unlikely, but exaggerating for emphasis)then go to GC or State St, Downtown X, Park St, MGH or Tufts(or even SS, then my point is made, if its 5 percent then yours is proven. Of course, station placement(and how many) also affect utility.
As far as Cambridge and points northeast, I think that your point is has some validity regarding Kendall and Central Sq, but as far as Central and Southern MIT and Harvard Sq, then West to UR GL should fit the bill. And I am also assuming that NSRL would give the RL the relief it needs to carry any ER pax.
And, yes I have presupposed RBC.
Also, while this doesn't meet every need as well as several individual projects, it does most of it at less cost than all the projects together. And it does a few things that the other projects can't. I will appraise you of our data when it comes in.
Red through the core of Park, DTX, and South Station is already close to capacity though, is the problem. Adding more people to that without adequate load spreading isnt wise. And RBC doesn't really work as a load spreader when in order to work you're asking people to, what, take CR to Airport, Blue to MGH, and then Red to Kendall? No one is going to do that if they can do it in one stop by staying on the train a touch longer. The idea that the alternate route is less crowded isnt likely to have purchase with the average rider. Additionally, you're not looking for NS destinations and modes now, you're looking for Eastern Route modes and destinations.
With BLX+RBC, that ridership at least has a more natural way to spread out (since we're rightly treating Lynn as the big ridership prize here). Incidentally, this is why I don't think RUR to Lynn on its own is sufficient regardless of routing.
I'm also unsure as to why you assume NSRL would do enough to reduce Red crowding on its own to free up space for other Red-bound transfers, could you elaborate on that stance? It would drastically reduce Orange crowding by reducing the need for riders to hop on Orange between North Station and Back Bay due to the unfilled gap, but it's my understanding that the gap induced crowding impacts Orange more than Red. South Station is just a ridership monster unto itself, which is why funneling more transfer traffic to that is unwise, given that it's only going to grow organically.
Finally, we've come full circle on cost. You think the cross-harbor tunnel does all of these things at lower cost to simply doing the targeted projects. As you know, I disagree. If that's your big hook, we're gonna have to agree to disagree, since we don't have a shared cost basis to compare on, but I firmly believe that you can serve all the same constituencies that the cross-harbor tunnel serves at higher utility and equal or lower cost by building those targeted projects. Bonus points for the fact that the benefits to at least some areas (specifically for this exercise, Lynn) will come sooner than 4 or 5 years after groundbreaking (since BLX is a mostly or entirely surface extension).
Last edited: