Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

(Apologies for the double post, but distinct thought)

There are plenty of projects that are included in EVERY Rail Vision alternative. Regardless of the direction the Rail Vision takes, the MBTA should be banging out all of these projects ASAP:
  • Rockport - additional capacity (presumably a full-length high-level platform)
  • Ballardvale - additional capacity (presumably a full-length high-level platform)
  • Waltham - addition capacity and additional track (presumably double tracking through Waltham and consolidating the station to a single stop with full-length high-level platform(s))
  • Littleton/495 - turn track (presumably a pocket track for more short-turns)
  • Fitchburg - additional capacity
  • Newton Commuter Rail Accessibility Improvements
    • In Design
  • Worcester Union Station Improvements
    • In Design
  • Needham Heights - additional capacity (presumably a full-length high-level platform)
  • Franklin Line - additional track west of Norfolk as well as through Norwood, separate from the currently in-progress Franklin Line Double Track project
  • Windsor Gardens - additional capacity (presumably a full-length high-level platform)
Aside from the two Worcester Line projects that are in-design, there has been little-to-no publicized movement on the other projects in real life. Theoretically, these can all be pursued in short-order without having any negative effect on the Rail Vision. Does anybody have any knowledge as to whether any of the above are going to at least be designed or studied soon - within the next year maybe?

We are talking about six minor (a single high platform or a pocket track) projects, one moderate project (more double-tracking on the Franklin Line), and one possible larger project (I don't know how they envision getting through Waltham. Double-track bridge over Moody? Station in trench a la Waverley, but accessible?)
 
bigeman312 said:
By that same token, wouldn't restoring service to Riverside and having that be the terminus for rapid inner area service similarly make sense?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Riverside should be a major transfer point with a direct garage ramp from the highway

tysmith95 said:
I don't see this happening, that bike path is way too popular.

I think the Lowell should be extended to Nashua, but those tracks already exist as freight tracks.
Click to expand...

Thats why it should be a subway, to leave the bike trail
 
tysmith95 said:
I think the Lowell should be extended to Nashua, but those tracks already exist as freight tracks.
Click to expand...

This was discussed elsewhere.. certainly doable but it would be a really long commute. Especially when you factor that any commuters would likely have to get on Green or Orange to get to their job. Extending the CR out further doesn't make sense if it's just too far.
 
An extension of the Lowell line in to New Hampshire could make sense if it's not seen as a route for Boston commuting. Perhaps Lowell could become a second nexus on the line, with people taking the train there from further North. I don't know that there is ridership demand for this right now, but I do envision a future, more vibrant Lowell being able to serve that purpose. I see it similarly to how the extension of the Providence line isn't about getting people from Wickford to Boston, but to Providence.
 
Nashua is the same distance, if not closer than Fitchburg.

It's also about the same distance as Providence, which is the station with the highest ridership outside of Boston.
 
tysmith95 said:
Nashua is the same distance, if not closer than Fitchburg.

It's also about the same distance as Providence, which is the station with the highest ridership outside of Boston.
Click to expand...

Big difference is that Providence Line has multiple job centers right on the CR path (BB, SS, and sometime stops at Ruggles). Lowell Line doesn't.
 
tysmith95 said:
Also where it says to Kingston, Westerly, and Connecticut is served by the Northeast Corridor. It makes no sense to expand the MBTA further that way, as Kingston is already too far for large quantities of ridership.
Click to expand...

IIRC it would RIDOT commuter service using MBCR equipment. It wouldn’t run to Boston. It would short turn somewhere in RI or Attleboro.
 
anthtucker312 said:
I'd imagine that the construction of the subway would be pretty disruptive to the path and would be met with lots of backlash.
Click to expand...

Let’s try to keep this thread in the realm of the official vision. We have plenty of threads for pitching transit projects in Design a Better Boston.
 

Former state transportation secretary Fred Salvucci warned on Monday that Logan International Airport needs a lot more transportation capacity.

In remarks to the state’s two transportation boards, Salvucci offered a tweak of the design of gthe North South Rail Link as one way of relieving congestion at the airport. Instead of running two tracks in each direction north to south, Salvucci suggested having one track in each direction running north-south and one track in each direction headed to the airport. He said the additional rail link to the airport is needed to relieve congestion.

“The airport is actually going to choke without more capacity,” he said.
 
SouthEnder88 said:

Former state transportation secretary Fred Salvucci warned on Monday that Logan International Airport needs a lot more transportation capacity.

In remarks to the state’s two transportation boards, Salvucci offered a tweak of the design of gthe North South Rail Link as one way of relieving congestion at the airport. Instead of running two tracks in each direction north to south, Salvucci suggested having one track in each direction running north-south and one track in each direction headed to the airport. He said the additional rail link to the airport is needed to relieve congestion.

“The airport is actually going to choke without more capacity,” he said.
Click to expand...

FFS, why are we still talking about tampering with the N-S Link? If they're ever going to lay a new tunnel under the harbor to Logan it's going to be rapid transit, not regional rail.
 
"Universe" of studied Purple Line proposals (ranked in no particular priority order) that one could claim still has a pulse. Stuff like Needham line going to rapid transit is obviously rapid transit and not included here. We have a pretty good idea how NSRL will change the game, so omitting mention of those service patterns and just sticking to linear corridors.

Southside
  • Riverside spur via Worcester Line Allston/Newton.
  • Fall River/New Bedford via Middleboro (a.k.a. the brokingest South Coast FAIL flavor)
  • Full-build Foxboro (i.e. 16 Foxboro round-trips added on top of 16 Forge Park round-trips).
  • Full Middleboro schedule extension to Buzzards Bay via Wareham Crossing (monkey wrench thrown in the works by SCR). Possible commuter extras to Hyannis couple times per peak, since up to 4 round trips per day can be run on unsignalized Cape track without triggering the PTC mandate.
  • Fall River/New Bedford via Stoughton (a.k.a. SCR Phase II a.k.a. the "less-broken" SCR). Fixing the inattention to NEC capacity and challenging the Army Corps' fishy swamp trestle to ensure full double-track might ensure a buildable project after all if they stick to their guns.
  • RIDOT Intrastate Commuter Rail I: Pawtucket-Westerly (and mixed service patterns within)
  • RIDOT Intrastate Commuter Rail II: Woonsocket-Providence (and thru-running to core NEC stops)
  • Franklin Line from Forge Park to Milford or Hopedale.
  • Franklin Line from Franklin Jct. to Woonsocket via Blackstone (instead of or addition to Milford Branch).
  • Plymouth Line from Cordage Park to Downtown Plymouth/Ferry Terminal, possible retirement of Kingston station for a mainline Kingston stop north of Cordage that consolidates a full RER schedule all in one place.
  • Fitchburg Secondary commuter rail: Framingham-Northborough spur off Worcester Line (plus further extension potential to Clinton Union Station and 'backdoor' sweep to Worcester)
  • RIDOT Fall River-Newport passenger rail (wholly dependent on SCR completion, service patterns TBD). (weaker prospect, but within RI's financial means).
  • RIDOT/MassDOT Providence-Worcester (RIDOT 'bucket list' study item...probably the weakest prospect "with a pulse" on the whole list).
Northside
  • Lowell Line extension to Nashua (local schedule extension).
  • NHDOT "Capitol Corridor" commuter rail: Lowell-Concord (additional service pattern on top of Lowell/Nashua locals)
  • Peabody Branch: Salem-Peabody Sq. + South Middleton Branch to North Shore Mall/128 (possible un-studied further extension to West Peabody/I-95/US 1)
  • Grand Junction commuter rail: Worcester Line to North Station (***asterisked for unanswered questions re: headway ceiling on RR mode)
  • Haverhill Line "reinvention": Rosemont Ave. +1 by new layover, shear off Reading Line + interline outer half w/Lowell Line, infills on newly separated halves, etc. etc. Not "extension" per se because this is all well-trodden Downeaster territory, but more a major reallocation of ops assets.
  • Newburyport Line back to Portsmouth. (next NHDOT priority after Concord...may take a lifetime for them to get to it, but always viable if they do).

Amtrak
  • Inland Route base build: New Haven-Springfield-Boston (+ varied patterns therein).
  • "Montrealer" corridor plan: Boston-Montreal, add'l Vermonter frequencies leveraging Springfield Hub.
  • Downeaster expansion: NYC-Portland via Inland Route + Grand Junction + North Station, linear extension Brunswick-Augusta (long-range end target: Bangor), in-season "Rockland Flyer" via Brunswick.
  • Western MA studies: Albany-Pittsfield, Boston-Pittsfield, Boston-North Adams.
  • Cape Codder (NY-Hyannis) seasonal revival. (potential if RIDOT restores service to Newport to also run this as a split/combined "Cape Codder & Newporter" train that splits its separate ways in Providence or Taunton to max out its overall weekender cred a smidge).


Studied Proposals Whose Time of Death Has Been Declared. . .
  • (SS) Boston-Springfield as PURPLE LINE (see the 'red-hot' Amtrak proposal above...not any notion of losing all feeling in your ass trying to sit still in a T coach for 2-1/2 hours. Legislators love to name-check this one for self-pub reasons, but the state NEVER hinted that future frequent Inland service would ever be running under T inappropriately-tasked livery.
  • (n/a) Gov. Patrick's Magic New York-Pittsfield Choo-choo. (What an odd little trivia question that short-lived but overzealous answer to a demand question no one ever posed ended up becoming.)
  • (SS) Needham-Millis/West Medway
  • (SS) Falmouth Branch (as anything Purple Line re-extended to Falmouth Depot or Woods Hole...n.b. Cape Cod Central public-private dinky to N. Falmouth/Otis retains consequential shorter-term fast starts potential)
  • (SS) Dedham Branch (not "dead" as in physically impossible, merely very unlikely to go on the board unless Red were to come from Mattapan down River St. to feed it...and that's not a pre-2050 prospect).
  • (SS) Fitchburg Secondary past Clinton to Sterling/Leominster (too much Fitchburg Line catchment overlap for too slow a schedule)
  • (NS) Central Mass Branch Weston-West Berlin
  • (NS) Danvers Branch via Peabody Sq. (per above, S. Middleton Branch still a 'hot' prospect carrying Peabody demand)
  • (NS) Lexington Branch (as anything non- Red Line-Arlington Heights)
  • (NS) Manchester & Lawrence Branch
  • (NS) Woburn Branch (ROW property obliterated in spots...no Green Line here either)

Never officially studied, but just as dead. . .
  • (SS) Greenbush Line extension to Marshfield (too many encroachments despite nominal T ownership)
  • (SS) Cape Main east of Yarmouth Jct. incl. Chatham Branch
  • (SS) Wrentham Branch (Walpole-N. Attleboro). Theoretically intact, but property ownership much too fragmented).
  • (NS) Saugus Branch -anything
  • (NS) Marblehead Branch -anything
  • (NS) Topsfield Branch (Wakefield-Topsfield) -anything
  • (NS) Stoneham Branch -anything
  • (NS) Medford Branch -anything (note: nearly all of it is obliterated, so set your Orange spur proposals aside right now)
  • (NS) Marlboro Branch (South Acton-Hudson) -anything
(,,,plus anything else not already on this list, because it isn't landbanked or the least bit intact to begin with and is thus guaranteed to be a Crazy Transit Pitches rabbit hole)
 
Last edited:
SouthEnder88 said:

Former state transportation secretary Fred Salvucci warned on Monday that Logan International Airport needs a lot more transportation capacity.

In remarks to the state’s two transportation boards, Salvucci offered a tweak of the design of gthe North South Rail Link as one way of relieving congestion at the airport. Instead of running two tracks in each direction north to south, Salvucci suggested having one track in each direction running north-south and one track in each direction headed to the airport. He said the additional rail link to the airport is needed to relieve congestion.

“The airport is actually going to choke without more capacity,” he said.
Click to expand...

I see Fred got duped by the sketchy "FREE CANDY" van that goes around to top political hangouts and says, "Psst, kid! Propose more dubious RR airport connectors and you'll get to hang with all the coolest pork-rollers who smoke under the bleachers during class."

Thank fuck we've got Alon Levy the Crime Dog to tell us to never take Mainline-Airport Connectors from strangers. Now if only someone would cut a PSA to never "...but from one end of town to the other!" again in front of a hot mic and we might set Fred's best friend Mikey straight from a lifetime of bad talking points. (n)
 
George_Apley said:
IIRC it would RIDOT commuter service using MBCR equipment. It wouldn’t run to Boston. It would short turn somewhere in RI or Attleboro.
Click to expand...
I'd replace Kingston and TF Green with a new Woonsocket to Kingston with more stops. You could time it to connect with the MBTA in Providence.
 
George_Apley said:
IIRC it would RIDOT commuter service using MBCR equipment. It wouldn’t run to Boston. It would short turn somewhere in RI or Attleboro.
Click to expand...

Thanks to the Pilgrim Agreement, RIDOT has a proportional fleet ownership (north and south) that scales automatically to the utilization they put in on their side of the border. As well as straight 1:1 reimbursement of costs. Therefore, there really is no better way to pivot than them using the T as their mercenary operator. And it makes the T a net-positive sum of money, too, so we're getting pure benefit off it in MA encouraging them to grow their own way. NHDOT would work the same way. And theoretically we could "Reverse-Pilgrim" our way into running Springfield-Greenfield under the "CTRail" banner with ConnDOT-pool equipment more easily than we could going solo or Purple out in Western MA, because interlining with the Hartford Line for the quite significant Northampton-Hartford commute would go on the table that way.

The only 'hard' blocker is crossing two state borders, which is why you aren't ever going to see Purple Line equipment in Stonington or New London or--further future--crossing from Portsmouth to Kittery, ME. That most definitely extracts a share of paper cuts in the form of a whole other motherlode of cross-state agreements that all have to agree with each other's fine print, which in turn blunts some of the nifty (if not exactly earth-shattering) profit they pocket from doing their neighbors' bidding. But all those cases like Stonington or Kittery would be sitting on the long end of the comfort threshold schedule-wise for milking a seat in Purple Line livery, so nearly all regional cases where multiple state lines would ever be involved end up breaking pretty firmly in Amtrak's favor re: who you want running what equipment for the service. It's not something that's likely to be a real-life dilemma for service expansion, as the viable prospects are all pretty squarely MA-RI, intra-RI, MA-NH, and that 'reverse' CT-MA case out west.
 
George_Apley said:
FFS, why are we still talking about tampering with the N-S Link? If they're ever going to lay a new tunnel under the harbor to Logan it's going to be rapid transit, not regional rail.
Click to expand...
Honestly the Newburyport Rockport line is the best one for rapid transit. You could easily put rapid transit level frequencies from Salem on in, with 3 branches (Nbyport, Rockport, and Peabody).
 
bigeman312 said:
Aside from the two Worcester Line projects that are in-design, there has been little-to-no publicized movement on the other projects in real life. Theoretically, these can all be pursued in short-order without having any negative effect on the Rail Vision. Does anybody have any knowledge as to whether any of the above are going to at least be designed or studied soon - within the next year maybe?
Click to expand...

The Worcester line arguably has some of the most in design/study phase projects going on outside of Rail Vision. In addition to the Newton stations there's also some work on adding a third track in some areas, a full re-build of Natick Center into full high level platforms in early construction phase now, and studies on rebuilding well. farms, hills, square and west natick which if I'm not mistaken would make the Worcester line fully accessible and well on its way to regional rail service. There's also a lot of talk about East-West rail and an on-going study concerning that which links in to all of this. Assuming all the early phase projects make it to fruition that would completely change the worcester line. Now if only we could get a full high level platform at Back Bay
 
HelloBostonHi said:
The Worcester line arguably has some of the most in design/study phase projects going on outside of Rail Vision. In addition to the Newton stations there's also some work on adding a third track in some areas, a full re-build of Natick Center into full high level platforms in early construction phase now, and studies on rebuilding well. farms, hills, square and west natick which if I'm not mistaken would make the Worcester line fully accessible and well on its way to regional rail service. There's also a lot of talk about East-West rail and an on-going study concerning that which links in to all of this. Assuming all the early phase projects make it to fruition that would completely change the worcester line. Now if only we could get a full high level platform at Back Bay
Click to expand...

West Natick is fully ADA-compliant...just not level-boarding. Because of that it's legally got to slot last in sequence for upgrades on the inner half of the line and has to go behind all 3 Newtons and all 3 Wellesleys in the design-build queue out of accessibility fairness to the ones that have 0% handicapped access. The mini-highs @ WN were rebuilt 2 years ago to replace advanced deterioration of the retractable edges of the same kind that caused the infamous North Billerica platform collapse on the Lowell Line. Mass. Architectural Board granted them an emergency waiver to rebuild-in-place because of the acute safety risk from said deterioration and nod to keeping the mini-highs offline for as short a time as possible while they scrambled the rebuilds. While it's a dirt-simple station (1982 construction, and never a historical stop at that location) that shouldn't take long to design-build a level boarding replacement, it is a least-concern so long as it's wheelchair-kosher in current state and there remain other pressing non-accessible stops to stamp out.

Key metric the T has to weigh in how it slots these full-high rebuilds is how many level stops in a row can they string together, as minimizing the quantity of door trap flips brings the biggest net-positive impact to dwell time management. Secondary to that, it's how many full-high stops can they string together from (either end) terminal for enabling the auto-door coaches. With SS + Yawkey + BL all level and some of the Newtons coming sooner than later, it would behoove them to get that Back Bay platform raised ASAP because even running auto-doors on to Route 128 would be a substantial dwell reducer even if they have to switch to manual mode w/ door trap flips at Wellesley Farms for the rest of the trip. Unfortunately because the M.A.B. state-level accessibility rules are strict as they are they weight the priorities much heavier to settling up the zero-accessibility stations first before playing with relative luxuries like taking a 100% ADA platform like the BBy mini and making it full-high. So they have to really have their ducks in a row to advance that one ahead in the queue over the unfunded non-accessible stops. And that's fair; equal opportunity is more important as far as transit accessibility is concerned than simply working from #1 highest leverage enhancement on down.

Ultimately I think if you set sights on the pending Natick rebuild as a dividing line, since all of the non-accessible stops are inbound of there, you can set an effective target for accessibility "completion" and the turnover point for when the auto doors get turned off and traps get flipped. From there the M.A.B.'s tentacles aren't as strict and you can look to rebuilding 100% compliant mini-high West Natick + Framingham into full-highs...free from the gun-to-head urgency of settling up the non-compliants on the corridor. That pretty much settles up all the consequential parts of the corridor for level boarding and gets Amtrak completely level on the entirety of the Inland Route (and all the way to Schenectady if they want to reconfig Pittsfield for passing tracks and raise that one). Ashland-Grafton are on the freight clearance route and would need passing tracks...doable but decidedly low-priority because of the relatively new construction and minor dwell considerations out there. But level + auto-doors SS-Framingham and on all things Amtrak?...that's a tremendously meaningful target to hit if they can reach it in, say, 8 years or so. Will bleed consequential time off the schedule to have boardings/alightings speeded up everywhere 21 miles out.
 
For another thread, but isn't the Airport solution a combination of:
1) Better SL1 (Frequency, Ramp into TWT, T-under-D)
2) a peoplemover to the Blue and then BLX (Red-Blue, BLX North Lynn@CR)
3) a Gold Line BRT airport curbside from NS/Haymarket (NSRL North)
4) Better Logan Express (all-day HOV on I-93 inbounds)
5) Better Back Bay to Terminals

In particular, connections every 10 mins from North Station and Back Bay via Bus would be powerful connections.

And generally making bus@airport free -- way cheaper than amortized tunnel costs.
 
Seems to me each Regional Rail line should have a Park-and-Ride (TOD optional) where they intersect 128 and I-495.

Newburyport at 95 & North Beverly @ 128
Haverhill infills at 128 & 145
Reading infill @ 128, 129 or North Wilmington (terminus)
Lowell +1 to US3
Fitchburg infill at US20/128
Worcester infill 495 @ 90
NEC @ 495 (Mansfield)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top