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.
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.
I thought that the bridges and the fact that most of the NEC is already converted to high level platforms are the real obstacles to running bi-levels on the NEC?
They'd absolutely be able to buy Regionals-speed equipment at the T's bi-level dimensions and run those with the increased tunnel clearance. And that's exactly what they'll do if it comes to pass. Would make a huge difference not only on capacity but also pricing flexibility.
If you built a North - South Tunnel you could run Amtrak trains up to Portland and Concord which would free up capacity. Most of the people who use I-93 go trough Boston so there seems to be a decent demand already for a North - South Link. The New Haven - Hartford - Springfield - Brattleboro corridor will never use the Boston Network thats a seperate project. The Capital Corridor , Downeastern Extensions and Portsmouth line would greatly benefit from a North - South tunnel. Unlike in this region , Boston system is either electric or diesel which means you don't need to buy different trains other then dual or one power source....
I'm not so sure that it's this simple. You have to climb up and down the stairs to move from bi-level to bi-level on the T, which I don't think is really going to fly with a train that requires you to cross several cars to access the cafe, or for people carrying large amounts of luggage.
That's where the pricing flexibility part comes in. Bi-levels for expanded coach class. I mean, they wouldn't do all-bi trains like a commuter rail would. But that opens up a lower pricing tier for the plebes that doesn't currently exist. Business-class and up would still be in the singles and sleepers, which would sandwich the cafe cars. On a 10-car train you'd be talking 2-3 bi-levels spaced >2 cars from the creature comforts. But at lower price.
(That's not just a brainstorming idea, BTW. This is what they actually want to do.)
So the new options would be economy, coach, and business on the Regional trains then? How would that impact the multi-ride / monthly-ride / unreserved tickets? Would they all be relegated to economy, seated as available, or what?
My main concern would be creating awkward situations e.g. forcing monthly pass holders to declare / reserve a seat in advance or having a multi-ride ticket user who can't be seated because his ticket is no longer good in coach but all the economy seats are occupied.
I already find tilting to be a little disorienting :/
They already have coach and business with full trains on a regular basis.
Yeah, but business is a single car with (IIRC) 64 seats, that presents an upgrade over the standard (coach) service prevalent in the rest of the train.
If you create a budget or economy class, then that becomes the new standard level of service - and, conversely, locks off 6 or 7 cars in a 10 car train behind a 'premium seating' restriction instead of 1 car out of 8.
15 years to figure that one out. At least. Probably 20. What are the odds anything about today's pricing structure is going to resemble the 2025-30 market? Or that 2025-design bi-levels on an intercity carrier are going to look exactly like the 1996-design T commuter rail bi-level carbody.
That's overthinking it just a bit.
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.
Wouldn't the infill stations + electrifying for EMUs basically make it rapid transit? Sure it isn't third-rail and the rolling stock might be different from the typical subway cars, but the corridor is dense enough to warrant frequent service.
^ I guess that was my thought: is the Fairmount still used by freight, anyway?
