Reasonable Transit Pitches

I'm not opposed to the idea of a N/S link, and I think that a 36-track mega terminal would be badass. However, I'd like to know how much this will cost. Apparently, Dukakis believes that the jury is not yet out on the cost-to-benefit of the link, so it could be a higher priority project than I think. I'm not so presumptuous as to assume that my subjective and unscientific reckonings about the tunnel are absolute fact.

Just curious, though:
(1) To route every north side train through the N/S link, how wide would it have to be? Would 2 tracks be sufficient?
(2) Assuming that 7 tracks are added to south station at ground level, and Amtrak creates an additional underground 6-track terminal for its southside lines (as briefly mentioned in its Vision 2040), and 10 tracks are added underground for north lines, how would the link be configured? Surely all 16 underground tracks would have to be below the Red Line...
(3) If the above was implemented, would the 7 track south station expansion even be necessary? It sounds like its mostly just to solve a storage issue.
 
b-line200 said:
Realistically, they could either take the commuter rail to South Station, transfer to the Fitchburg Line, and then take a bus from some station to their office park destination. On the other hand, they could leave when they want, get on 128, arrive at their reserved parking space, all without having to worry about their train being delayed and having to wait in Waltham for the next shuttle bus.
Click to expand...

Or spend 3 hours commuting each way.
 
b-line200 said:
I'm not opposed to the idea of a N/S link, and I think that a 36-track mega terminal would be badass. However, I'd like to know how much this will cost. Apparently, Dukakis believes that the jury is not yet out on the cost-to-benefit of the link, so it could be a higher priority project than I think. I'm not so presumptuous as to assume that my subjective and unscientific reckonings about the tunnel are absolute fact.

Just curious, though:
(1) To route every north side train through the N/S link, how wide would it have to be? Would 2 tracks be sufficient?
(2) Assuming that 7 tracks are added to south station at ground level, and Amtrak creates an additional underground 6-track terminal for its southside lines (as briefly mentioned in its Vision 2040), and 10 tracks are added underground for north lines, how would the link be configured? Surely all 16 underground tracks would have to be below the Red Line...
(3) If the above was implemented, would the 7 track south station expansion even be necessary? It sounds like its mostly just to solve a storage issue.
Click to expand...

(1) I'd say maybe, but it'd be tight, and I'd want a trained dispatcher to give me a second opinion on it. (I'm thinking regulations wouldn't let you squeeze the trains close enough together on this one.) I'd be far more comfortable with four or even three tracks than I would with two, and I'd want the cost / benefit analysis to include a 3 rail+2 transit configuration. If it's not that much more expensive, 3+2 might be a better value proposition than 4+0.
(2) I would, personally, even go as low as 6-and-6, or 8 southside and 6 northside. Southbound trains coming into North Station would use a 6-track-portal, decline into 'North Station Under' where three island platforms could serve all 6 tracks, and from there the 6 tracks would merge together into the 4 or 3 tunnel tracks. Once out of the tunnel, the tracks would split up again, with 8 tracks served by 4 island platforms underneath South Station. Four of those tracks would lead to the Back Bay Approach portal directly, and the other four would lead to the Fairmount Line portal.
(3) It wouldn't. South Station Expansion Project, and any funding appropriated it, would likely be gobbled up by the Rail Link, since the Link makes that project unnecessary.
 
No South Station expansion would be needed, nor would any 36 track mega terminal. Actually, SS expansion isn't needed now, they need a place to park the trains. Doing that on expensive downtown land is kind of silly. With through-running, the need for storage would be even less.

The only reason this proposal is "reasonable" at all is because of the slurry walls and the space left by the Central Artery/Tunnel. The NSRL was supposed to be part of that project, it was cancelled, but they did leave room and cleared the utilities, which may cut costs considerably.

I think you will want four tracks for expandability in the long run, but two tracks could do for now. Not every train has to go through. Cross platform connections can be fairly painless if done right. Of course, we don't seem to know how to do that in this country, but one can dream.

Land use and transportation go hand in hand. La Défense owes its recent success to the RER station for example.

Anecdotally, I had a friend who used to commute from Ashland to near Woburn. It took her over an hour and a half each way at rush hour. I think trains using the NSRL could easily compete with that. I think it's reasonable to be having a discussion about it. I don't know if the MBTA could handle the implementation, but I think it is in the realm of possibility.
 
Matthew said:
I don't know if the MBTA could handle the implementation, but I think it is in the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

The beauty of it is, Amtrak would likely be running the show. They already dispatch on the NEC - get the Rail Link and North Station designated as NEC Main Line and Amtrak is free to tell the MBCR to sit down and shut up whenever they want or need to.
 
But 13 tracks aboveground is an unlucky number! :p

In all seriousness, would 8 tracks really be sufficient to handle all northside lines, plus potential growth, plus additional southside capacity? Would it be reasonable to tack on another 2 or so platforms?

Why are the Old Colony Lines getting the short end of the stick? Would it be unreasonable for the portal to be north of the split.

Also, to complete my pipe dream, could you consider waiving your opposition to single-track for the Fairmount line? In terms of long term capacity, if the Fairmount line is converted to rapid transit then there would still need to be room for conventional rail so that the Franklin Line and South Coast Rail don't inhibit NEC growth. It seems, though, that both lines would have reasonable headways even if a single track catered to about half of their trips into South Station. For most of the Fairmount's length, four tracks is completely impossible without bulldozing buildings
 
Hmm lets look at the various NYC terminals...expansion is needed because no one wants to through run...

New York Penn Station
Tracks in 2012 : 21 > Tracks by 2030 : 30
Daily Passengers in 2012 740,000 > Daily Passengers by 2030 : 880,000
Power Sources : 750V DC Top Contact , 12.5kV/25Hz Catenary > 25kV/60Hz by 2030
Current Lines to Call NYP home

Northeast Corridor
North Jersey Coast line
Midtown Direct - Montclair University line
Midtown Direct - Morristown line
Midtown Direct - Gladstone Branch
Babylon Branch
Belmont Park Branch
Far Rockaway Branch
Hempstead Branch
Long Beach Branch
Montauk Branch
Oyster Bay Branch
Port Jefferson Branch
Port Washington Branch
Ronkonkoma Branch
West Hempstead Branch
Acela Express
Adirondack
Cardinal
Carolinian
Crescent
Empire Service
Ethan Allen Express
Keystone Service
Lake Shore Limited
Maple Leaf
Pennsylvanian
Northeast Regional
Palmetto
Silver Meteor
Silver Star
Vermonter

Future Service
Red Bank - Forked River line
Monmouth JCT line
Matawan line
South Amboy Branch
Hell Gate line
West Side Line
Lackawanna line
Lackawanna Express
Lehigh Express
Downstate Service
Next Gen Shoreline Express
Next Gen Super Express

Grand Central Terminal
Tracks in 2012 : 67 > Tracks by 2030 : 80
Daily Passengers in 2012 450,000 > Daily Passengers by 2030 : 750,000
Power Sources : 750V DC Bottom contact & 750V DC Top Contact for LIRR by 2019
Current Lines to Call GCT home

Hudson line
Harlem line
New Haven line
Danbury Branch
New Canaan Branch

Future lines

Babylon Branch
Belmont Park Branch
Far Rockaway Branch
Hempstead Branch
Long Beach Branch
Montauk Branch
Oyster Bay Branch
Port Jefferson Branch
Port Washington Branch
Ronkonkoma Branch
West Hempstead Branch
Empire Service
Northeast Regional to Boston
Next Gen Shoreline Express to Boston
 
Nexis4jersey said:
Hmm lets look at the various NYC terminals...expansion is needed because no one wants to through run...

New York Penn Station
Tracks in 2012 : 21 > Tracks by 2030 : 30
Daily Passengers in 2012 740,000 > Daily Passengers by 2030 : 880,000
Power Sources : 750V DC Top Contact , 12.5kV/25Hz Catenary > 25kV/60Hz by 2030
Current Lines to Call NYP home

Northeast Corridor
North Jersey Coast line
Midtown Direct - Montclair University line
Midtown Direct - Morristown line
Midtown Direct - Gladstone Branch
Babylon Branch
Belmont Park Branch
Far Rockaway Branch
Hempstead Branch
Long Beach Branch
Montauk Branch
Oyster Bay Branch
Port Jefferson Branch
Port Washington Branch
Ronkonkoma Branch
West Hempstead Branch
Acela Express
Adirondack
Cardinal
Carolinian
Crescent
Empire Service
Ethan Allen Express
Keystone Service
Lake Shore Limited
Maple Leaf
Pennsylvanian
Northeast Regional
Palmetto
Silver Meteor
Silver Star
Vermonter

Future Service
Red Bank - Forked River line
Monmouth JCT line
Matawan line
South Amboy Branch
Hell Gate line
West Side Line
Lackawanna line
Lackawanna Express
Lehigh Express
Downstate Service
Next Gen Shoreline Express
Next Gen Super Express

Grand Central Terminal
Tracks in 2012 : 67 > Tracks by 2030 : 80
Daily Passengers in 2012 450,000 > Daily Passengers by 2030 : 750,000
Power Sources : 750V DC Bottom contact & 750V DC Top Contact for LIRR by 2019
Current Lines to Call GCT home

Hudson line
Harlem line
New Haven line
Danbury Branch
New Canaan Branch

Future lines

Babylon Branch
Belmont Park Branch
Far Rockaway Branch
Hempstead Branch
Long Beach Branch
Montauk Branch
Oyster Bay Branch
Port Jefferson Branch
Port Washington Branch
Ronkonkoma Branch
West Hempstead Branch
Empire Service
Northeast Regional to Boston
Next Gen Shoreline Express to Boston
Click to expand...

Would connectivity have been improved had Christie not vetoed the ARC project?
 
b-line200 said:
But 13 tracks aboveground is an unlucky number! :p

In all seriousness, would 8 tracks really be sufficient to handle all northside lines, plus potential growth, plus additional southside capacity? Would it be reasonable to tack on another 2 or so platforms?

Why are the Old Colony Lines getting the short end of the stick? Would it be unreasonable for the portal to be north of the split.

Also, to complete my pipe dream, could you consider waiving your opposition to single-track for the Fairmount line? In terms of long term capacity, if the Fairmount line is converted to rapid transit then there would still need to be room for conventional rail so that the Franklin Line and South Coast Rail don't inhibit NEC growth. It seems, though, that both lines would have reasonable headways even if a single track catered to about half of their trips into South Station. For most of the Fairmount's length, four tracks is completely impossible without bulldozing buildings
Click to expand...

World-class train operations can get in, move people, and get out in 30 seconds. Of course, calling the MBCR a world-class operation is a terrible joke, so we're going to need trains to be stopped for 2 minutes. Throw on another 2 minutes for spacing concerns, and that's still 15 trains per hour... per platform.

I would say 120 trains per hour is more than enough capacity, wouldn't you? Any more can utilize the above-ground platforms.

The Old Colony Lines are getting shafted because of the single-track bottleneck that exists at JFK/UMass and for the fact that none of the Old Colony Lines are frankly very good. Fix them, and I'll entertain adding a portal for them later... much later.

The thing about Fairmount is, it shouldn't be converted to Rapid Transit. As I understand it, everything underneath that line is pretty much clear of obstacles - if true Rapid Transit is needed on that corridor, we can dig out a tunnel and let the existing rail lines sit on top of it.

But I don't think we'll ever need that rapid transit if/when we can get EMUs on that line.

Nexis4jersey said:
Hmm lets look at the various NYC terminals...expansion is needed because no one wants to through run...
Click to expand...

I'm going to level with you here for a minute.

It's because of LIRR and Metro-North that I would be 120% behind any effort to, say, force any agencies operating inter-state rail lines to immediately relinquish control of such lines to Amtrak.

And, if, say, someone were to axe PATH and LIRR, have the MTA proper assume direct control, and have Amtrak eat Metro-North, I don't think I would shed a single tear.

b-line200 said:
Would connectivity have been improved had Christie not vetoed the ARC project?
Click to expand...

Between ARC and ESA, the new tracks would have come within 1000 feet of each other. It would have been trivial to punch out a Penn-GCT connection and be done with it, especially with all the equipment there already.
 
Also I assume that Central Station is out of the equation considering that it is a solution to a nonexistent problem?
 
b-line200 said:
Also I assume that Central Station is out of the equation considering that it is a solution to a nonexistent problem?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, the only Central Station we should EVER have is a renamed Boston South Station, with North Station renamed to Boston Garden.

The Central Station lunacy is worse than just a solution in need of a problem, it would wreak havoc on trains trying to utilize the Link.

Not to mention, by necessity, such a 'station' would amount to stub platforms in an uninviting mess of pedestrian tunnels due to simple spatial constraints.
 
ARC Alt G would have connected GCT and Penn Station. It was not under construction when Christie cancelled the project. Maybe some good can come out of that if Alt G is resurrected.
 
The PATH is more Rapid Transit then Railroad , the only expanding its doing is to EWR and possibly Midtown Elizabeth via Elizabethport.

Once the issues in this region is every uses is a different voltage or 3rd Rail type....making merging systems expensive.... Electrifying Diesel lines is easy compared to changing top contact to bottom...All Overhead will be switched to 25kV/60Hz by the late 2020s...

Current Network

Hudson line
Harlem line
New Haven line
New Canaan Branch
Waterbury Branch
Northeast Corridor
North Jersey Coast line
Morristown line
Montclair - Boonton line
Gladstone Branch
Danbury Branch
Port Jervis line
Main line
Bergen County line
Raritan Valley line
Pascack Valley line
Atlantic City line
RiverLINE
Babylon Branch
Belmont Park Branch
Far Rockaway Branch
Hempstead Branch
Long Beach Branch
Montauk Branch
Oyster Bay Branch
Port Jefferson Branch
Port Washington Branch
Ronkonkoma Branch
West Hempstead Branch

Under Construction / Under Study

Lackawanna Rail line
Hell Gate line
West Side line
Gateway Project to Penn Station & GCT

Proposed Network

West Shore line
Red Bank - Forked River line
Monmouth JCT line
Matawan line
South Amboy Branch
Kingsland Branch (RPA)
Cross Chester line (my idea)
Lehigh Valley Rail Extensions
Danbury Branch Extension to New Milford
Old Piermont Branch (RPA)
Northwest Rail link (RPA)
Old Boonton Branch (RPA)
Beacon / Maybrook line
West Trenton line
Pompton Branch (RPA)
Cape May line
West Trenton Branch
Pennsville line
Glassboro line
Millville Extension
Central Branch
Hempstead line
Wading River Extension
Rockaway Beach line


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electric Lines Powered @ 25kV/60Hz

North Jersey Coast line (South Amboy to Long Branch
Morristown line
Montclair - Boonton line
Gladstone Branch
Red Bank - Forked River line
Monmouth JCT line
Matawan line
South Amboy Branch
Gateway Project to Penn Station & GCT

Electric lines Powered @ 12.5kV/25Hz > 25kV/60Hz by 2020

Northeast Corridor
North Jersey Coast line (Rahway to South Amboy)

Electric lines Powered @ 12.5 kV/60 Hz > 25kV/60Hz by 2030

Danbury Branch Extension to New Milford
Danbury Branch
New Haven line
New Canaan Branch
Cross Chester line

Electric lines Powered @ 11 kV/25Hz > 25kV/60Hz by 2030

Hell Gate line

Electric lines Powered @ 750 V DC Bottom Contact

Hudson line (Grand Central to Croton Harmon)
Harlem line (Grand Central to Southeast)
New Haven line (Grand Central to Pelham)

Electric lines Powered @ 750V DC Top Contact

Babylon Branch
Belmont Park Branch
Far Rockaway Branch
Hempstead Branch
Long Beach Branch
Port Washington Branch
Ronkonkoma Branch
West Hempstead Branch
Central Branch
Hempstead line
Rockaway Beach line

Diesel lines

Hudson line (Croton Harmon to Poughkeepsie)
Harlem line (Southeast to Wassaic)
Waterbury Branch
Main line
Bergen County line
West Shore line
West Side line
Raritan Valley line
Lehigh Valley Rail Extensions
Old Piermont Branch (RPA)
Pascack Valley line
Kingsland Branch (RPA)
Northwest Rail link (RPA)
Old Boonton Branch (RPA)
Beacon / Maybrook line
West Trenton line
Montclair - Boonton line (MSU to Denville)
Pompton Branch (RPA)
Atlantic City line
Cape May line
RiverLINE
West Trenton Branch
Pennsville line
Glassboro line
Millville Extension
Oyster Bay Branch
Port Jefferson Branch
Port Washington Branch
Wading River Extension
 
Right, I know that Christie accepted federal funds for studies, publicly denounced the project, and refused to reimburse the feds for the wasted money. And this man claims to be against wasteful spending...

Could somebody also explain the difference between ARC and Gateway?
 
b-line200 said:
Right, I know that Christie accepted federal funds for studies, publicly denounced the project, and refused to reimburse the feds for the wasted money. And this man claims to be against wasteful spending...

Could somebody also explain the difference between ARC and Gateway?
Click to expand...

The Gateway is ARC Plan G , it also replaces an old swing bridge which gets stuck once a month with 2 Fixed Bridges , one 3-4 tracked bridge for NJT and 2 Tracked Bridge for Amtrak. A New larger Kearny JCT will allow for Amtrak to run separate from NJT from Newark Penn to New York Penn on New ROW. Newark Penn Station will be restored to handle 22 cars , The Newark Embankment will be replaced , parts of it are falling apart.... The Raritan Valley line will be grade separated where it merges with the NEC to free up capacity and upgrade speeds. In Harrison the PATH is moving the Inbound Platforms over one track to allow Amtrak to eliminate a bottleneck , the NEC in Harrison is 3 tracks. Then goes down to 2 tracks to New York. In the Future Between New York & Newark it will be 4-5 tracks and south of Newark to Rahway 6 tracks by 2030. In NYC , Penn Station will expand by 7 tracks to form Penn Station south with tail tracks heading to Grand Central. The Project will cost between 13-15 Billion , stretch 12 miles and triple capacity...
 
Nexis4jersey said:
The Gateway is ARC Plan G , it also replaces an old swing bridge which gets stuck once a month with 2 Fixed Bridges , one 3-4 tracked bridge for NJT and 2 Tracked Bridge for Amtrak. A New larger Kearny JCT will allow for Amtrak to run separate from NJT from Newark Penn to New York Penn on New ROW. Newark Penn Station will be restored to handle 22 cars , The Newark Embankment will be replaced , parts of it are falling apart.... The Raritan Valley line will be grade separated where it merges with the NEC to free up capacity and upgrade speeds. In Harrison the PATH is moving the Inbound Platforms over one track to allow Amtrak to eliminate a bottleneck , the NEC in Harrison is 3 tracks. Then goes down to 2 tracks to New York. In the Future Between New York & Newark it will be 4-5 tracks and south of Newark to Rahway 6 tracks by 2030. In NYC , Penn Station will expand by 7 tracks to form Penn Station south with tail tracks heading to Grand Central. The Project will cost between 13-15 Billion , stretch 12 miles and triple capacity...
Click to expand...

How does that differ from the original ARC which Christie vetoed?
 
In other words, Chris Christie's decision not to move forward with the project meant nothing?
 
b-line200 said:
How does that differ from the original ARC which Christie vetoed?
Click to expand...

ARC was simply for NJ Transit, wouldn't have connected to Penn at all, and would've built a wholly separate terminal down the street so every single NJ train could get to Manhattan instead of only a subset running through with most turning on the NJ side. The goal of it was to separate commuter rail operations from Amtrak so Amtrak had the existing tunnels to itself.

The Gateway project whacks the new station and realigns everything into a track merge right outside Penn. Would require Amtrak to be segregated to the east-side tracks of the station since they'd be primary user of the new tunnels, and the junction would be a little bit of a delicate dispatching dance...but overall it serves a lot more uses for a lot more stakeholders and doesn't waste extra billions on the separate station only one party will use (of course, they'll just waste those $B's on the Moynihan Station annex onto Penn...but that's a different matter).

Substituting Gateway for ARC was the correct call. The pointlessness of having single-use stations was a problem. The way Christie went about canceling it was kind of bullshitty, though. There were sounder ways of justifying it than he used (i.e. raid the fed $$$ from the project for the state's highway fund), and be a bit more rational about it than getting angry for getting angry's sake. But...whatever. Waste and all from the stoppage Gateway would be a better deal in the end. Plus that new tunnel would actually allow Amtrak to use full-size bi-levels on the NEC for the first time in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top