Ideally I'd have the whole MBCR electrified. I have an expanded commuter rail map that looks much like your RER system. How does the Paris RER system work? Is it like an EMU version of our Commuter Rail?
While it is EMU, the Paris RER is much, much more than that. It is something of a hybrid between true commuter rail and an express Metro. Because Paris's Metro network has such a high concentration of stations, it wasn't feasible for them to extend the network much outside of the city, so they layered the RER as an express network to serve the suburbs. Thus you have a speedier way to get from major stations in Paris, along with extensive, regular and efficient service to the greater commuting region.
A question about your map Omaja: Does it presume the removal of the existing North and South Stations as surface terminals for Commuter Rail service in favor of underground N/S Connector stations?
Yes, though some surface tracks would probably remain for short turns and the like.
Boston has a reputation as a progressive city with fairly free-flowing freeways compared to other cities and an extensive transit system. Most people don't see the T as lacking (except when they propose service cuts or fare increases), and don't want service if they don't already have it. If all of the people along the path of a line want neither the service nor the new development at the terminus - as is the case with the Red Line - it's difficult to defend forcing it down their throats for the sake of one planner's "vision". That's been done too - it's how the West End was destroyed.
Have I missed the memo about Boston?
Free flowing freeways? Boston is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 most congested areas in the country. I'm also not sure who would vouch for the T being adequate for a city and region as large as Boston. It has a very long way to go before it has a size-appropriate network, reliable service and efficient operations.
While I can agree that suburban extensions are certainly lower priority than increasing mobility within the immediate Boston-Cambridge-Brookline-Chelsea-Revere area, infrastructure investments (especially rail) are the type of things that must be positioned correctly. Whereas we have made road improvements a foregone conclusion no matter where we are, we've left out nearly every other mode of transportation from the mix. That's a policy and PR issue that can be fixed with the right leadership.
Crazy branching omaja. I count 11 on the south side, and 8 on the north side. Presuming 8 run through, I guess you're assuming a quad-tracked N/S link? And why does RER D have such a severe U-shape?
All of the lines would run through--you'd just have some branches seeing more service than others based on demand. A quad-tracked North-South link would be a definite. I tried to match up the existing commuter rail lines based on current ridership to align demand across the north and south portions. The Fitchburg and Worcester lines were basically what was left.
But if that actually came to pass, and goodness knows, stranger things have, omaja's proposal and the like suddenly look a lot less crazy.
But I agree that it might a good idea for a "Reasonable (but hopefully innovative!) Transit Pitches" thread.
Thing is, I don't see how a network like any of the ones we've mapped is really all that crazy. Compare to networks in Lisbon, Frankfurt, Madrid, Munich, Barcelona, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Buenos Aires, and the lost goes on and on; Boston is comparable in terms of metropolitan area population an density, certainly deserving of a much more extensive rail network than what it currently has.
All it takes is good leadership and proper messaging to rally communities around rail as a quality of life increase. But alas, we're severely lacking that and, as a consequence, every cost-benefit analysis will come out the same: in favor of the status quo of letting infrastructure decay and never offering more options to mobilize the population.