It also remains frustrating that in the public dialogue, the truly comprehensive benefits of NSRL are never mentioned: we may have gone, with Transitmatters, to at least having a group discussing the broader benefits to the commuter rails system rather than just being a connection between N and S station... but I have yet to read anything in the public realm about how we'll never be able to use the GJR for a GLX (or BRT, or anything other than Purple right now) until we create another connection for the two networks. The biggest picture stuff is the most important, but also the most lacking in any debate on Greater Boston transit...
Grand Junction really has little to nothing to do with NSRL. On the RR mode it's far too lousy-performing a line to swing much heft in an RER-ified commuter rail system and cause any major hand-wringing. The junctions, curves, and northside terminal district are just too dog-slow to sustain
reliable (<-- emphasis) all-day Urban Rail frequencies. The crossing impacts are apocryphal on the mode that can't share signal phases and can't incline fast enough to grade separate Mass Ave. And reverse-branching of the Worcester Line is problematic, because the previous WOR-NS study found very soft demand for it on non-peak hours where Red & Orange weren't over-straining under load at the transfers...where now we have the ongoing Orange/Red improvements directly aiming to neutralize most of that weakness. The last study showed that the conventional wisdom of the mythical MetroWest-Kendall one-seat doesn't end up holding water against a frequency + reliability argument on the mainline & transfers. That makes utmost sense in terms of basic RER principles (i.e. people will flock to the more frequent service, including the two-seat that's more frequent than the one-seat)...but it's not something we're used to in Greater Boston where frequencies are so poor that people tend to over-rate the single trip as a scarce resource and don't think much about linked trips.
In reality the RER rollout is going to have to write-off the GJ to whatever half-solution it can bear somewhat below the Urban Rail service threshold the mainlines get to enjoy, simply because it can't do any better. It doesn't mean it's not useful...on the contrary, whatever they can reasonably wring amidst the constraints is an unequivocal net-positive. But when the upper performance bound of the line doesn't sustain representative frequencies, it's just not going to be an important load-bearing cog in the RER system. And is an insignificant zit in any discussions about NSRL, since the service you can run within its threshold doesn't bring any truly game-breaking system linkage...just one south mainline to the north terminal, with no reciprocal north mainline-to-south anything return volley. The GJ in public perception is unfortunately like a supersized Track 61: this shiny bauble that must...be...pigeonholed into some grand scheme because it exists. A lot of those folks are going to have to downsize their expectations bigly when they realize the technical reality that it's a bit player in the network.
The mode change is what makes all the difference to the corridor. As soon as you're on a bus or trolley that's able to share road signal phases at the crossings, the carpocalypse at the un-eliminable Cambridge crossings vanishes. As soon as you're on a mode that can climb grades steep enough to get up/down over Mass Ave. in time for the MIT air rights buildings, you can act without screwing up the 1/CT1 in traffic. As soon as you're on a mode that can accelerate/decelerate worlds quicker than even the nimblest FRA-compliant EMU, you can add numerous additional stops conforming to Ring catchments. And as soon as you switch the mode hookups to BRT or Green Line, you're freed from the bane of the excruciating time-chewing crawl through the terminal district. This is where 6 min. or less bi-directional headways become possible on a ROW that (Mass Ave. grade separation aside) is physically unaltered from the one that couldn't do 15 min. bi-directional badged as an FRA railroad.
It'll become apparent how much changing modes is a gain in itself when people see how wide a miss the frequencies are when RER tries to stake itself to promises of strong reverse-branching schedule and has to significantly downsize it. It'll probably be eminently useful, but it won't be the West-Kendall-NS service panacea it was originally cracked up to be. And there lies the compelling motivation to go digging for something more than it can be with a serious look at a mode change.
For all that needs to be simplified with the next UR study, the moving parts should be broken out too instead of treated as a whole. So far we've established that dedicated-ROW north half is too different from mixed-running south half to treat as whole. Well, the quadrants also have different priority. The NW quadrant through Cambridge is arguably a higher priority than the NE quadrant through Sullivan, Chelsea, and Logan...all because of ↑this↑ desire to do something substantial now with the Grand Junction, but for the impending reality that the RR mode can't do enough of the desired job to hit its target. NW & NE quadrants should be technically scored, but priced out separately. The Harvard spur--excepting maybe the initial poke to West rolled in with the NW mainline--is also a separate installment-plan job because of wiggle room in Harvard's Beacon Park land use.
Basically, the re-study is taking the whole north half and doing the decision-making whither BRT or LRT (with LRT very likely being favored in a
fair scoring because GLX did 90% of the infrastructure work around Brickbottom whereas BRT would need to create all-new infrastructure through most of the Somerville project area). Then stating the technical requirements for each segment. Then doing THREE separate itemizations to fund as THREE separate project installments to mount in any order: NW quadrant + West poke, NE quadrant, rest of Harvard spur running north of West Station. And then they mount a separate re-study of the mixed running hack-a-thon on the south half, treated whole as a Silver Line appendage...but with the rapid transit elements they can't swing on the route itself instead bolstered by study considerations for strengthening feeder spines: Green Line conversion for Silver-Washington St., D-to-E connector + service pattern mixing at Brookline Village, Haul Road-to-Silver Line Way transfers to a Green Line-interlined Transitway, etc.