Thanks for pointing me to that one. Yeah, it's an interesting piece -- I'd love to see more vocal advocacy for modernizing the switches at Tower 1, that seems like a pretty targeted and tractable improvement that would see tangible results very quickly.
I don't have super strong feelings for or against SSX. In principle, I agree with the general argument: there probably are smaller more distributed improvements that we could make across the network that would produce greater benefit sooner. So I think there probably is a particular argument one could make against SSX.
I don't know if anyone here has a clear answer on this, but unless I missed something there didn't seem to be much about Amtrak in there. My understanding from previous discussion here is that part of the problem is caused by the Amtrak moves to and from Southampton yard (adding conflicting moves across the squashed interlocking), and I'm curious if anyone knows if any of that is factored in to TM's considerations here? Even the push-pull
Regionals they're planning aren't necessarily going to avoid the need to run up to the yard at least some of the time.
That said, I don't think this report quite gets there. To me, things fall apart when they get into the section about dedicated terminal tracks per line, where they argue that the need for last-minute equipment swaps is eliminated by replacement of the aging diesel fleet with electric. That's well-and-good, except now you've made (systemwide?) electrification the prereq for the capacity increases promised by SSX. In reality, you probably won't need full electrification systemwide, but I have no idea where the tipping point would be.
There's a chunk of the report here that I think you absolutely correctly identify as lacking, and to me it fits in with a trend in TM's work which I've noticed frequently has elements that don't quite pass the smell test. I think it's outright questionable overall whether you can eliminate equipment swaps like they seem to be suggesting. Part of the problem the T has now is that they can't interchange sets between lines, because a set of Needham flats would be overwhelmed on a Providence or Worcester run, and one of the monster bilevel sets from Providence would be extremely oversized for something like Needham. Just making the vehicles electric rather than diesel doesn't change the capacity discrepancies, unless they're suggesting a one-size-fits-all approach (which seems like it'd be rather inefficient).
This reflects a larger philosophical difference I find myself having with TransitMatters: the intermingling of major capital projects (e.g. electrification) with policy changes that can literally be effected with the stroke of a pen (e.g. fare equity); a similar dynamic plays out with incremental (e.g. full-highs at key stations) vs large-scale (e.g. equipment purchases) changes. Maybe their strategy is to consistently present a "package deal" for the likes of Maura Healey to come onboard with and buy into wholesale, and for all I know that could be a wise strategy. But from where I'm sitting, it seems better to present solutions that can be broken up into smaller pieces if needed.
To my point above, referencing not passing the sniff test. I do think it's about presenting a packaged vision for wholesale change, but I agree that it's questionable from a strategic standpoint. I'm not wholly convinced by their arguments that the need for SSX can be eliminated wholesale by electrification and by operational improvements (the absence of information on Amtrak is part of the reason for my skepticism). That said, the fact that the entire argument appears to require electrification and wholesale fleet replacement as prerequisites is deeply problematic. The lack of engagement with the depressingly cynical reality we have to live in is problematic, and too frequently shows up in TM's work. It's all well and good to present a quality vision of an upgraded system, but they don't come to life fully formed. There's a lack of discussion of "how we get there" that engages with the realities of politics and economics. The insistence on single-level cars is an example: yes, there's a ton of reasons why they're better (and probably not many places on our system where we'd have persistent capacity issues at max-length, max-frequency without bilevels), but that's
meaningless if you wind up with crap equipment or overpriced bids because of your insistence on single-levels. In the T's own EMU RFI, all the single-level bids were either vaporware imports, or the crudtastic Silverliner V. Similarly, on a bigger scale, with electrification; if you make wholesale electrification a prerequisite, you're telling the politicians they have to swallow all of those costs (because that's an infrastructure
and an equipment cost) up front to eventually (allegedly) make SSX obsolete. If that initiative dies somewhere along the way (take your pick of which of Worcester, Old Colony, or miscellaneous winds up cut after the costs balloon, because TM can complain about out-of-control costs all they want, complaining that it shouldn't happen doesn't mean that it won't), and you then can't get the benefits, you wind up having to build the freaking expansion anyway.
It really would be interesting if they, perhaps in addition to their preferred vision, made clearer offers of "partial-build" alternatives, ones that could help illustrate the trade-offs and why the preferred vision is considered the best. It's not
wrong per se to operate from the starting point of "SSX isn't necessary, here's how to make that work", but it'd also be valuable to have a clear layout of where the tipping points are, and how best to proceed for various system goals in the events that the prerequisites for their full vision aren't necessary accepted and built. It would be depressing as hell to stand in an expanded South Station full of diesels thirty years from now, and legitimate to complain that none of it was necessary, but infinitely better than a permanently-crippled system if they accepted the anti-SSX noise but didn't do anything to mitigate the crowding.