Also, I'm not sure there would really be a huge utility of having south station under act as a stub-end terminal, as it's capacity would be severely limited by only having 2 (maybe 4) platforms and long leads to reverse out as it's heading south or west. It really only works in concept as a thru-running station.
A partial build NSRL is called electrification and transformation from Commuter Rail to Regional Rail. The digging needs to happen all at once, but there is so so much work to do before digging.
Yeah, I don't know that it's true, but I do think that is the mindset of our political leadership -- fed money will be available at some point, we'll do the project at that time.Is this true? Driving my initial inquiry is my impression that NSRL feels meme-like these days. The thing that basically everyone wants and has been talked about for over a century but isn’t happening any time soon.
If I had to choose between the project never happening in my lifetime or the state taking over even if that means higher taxes and worse roads, I might choose the latter.
Agreed. TBM issue aside (theoretically could you dig out the station and leave the tbm in place to dig the tunnel later? I would assume not because by the time political, financial, and logistical will is in action to finish the job it probably wouldn't be usable). My question was not about what made sense from practical need. If we exist in a political environment where megaprojects are nearly impossible, how could we hope to build NSRL without some kind of piecemeal solution? The value of the under stub-end terminal lay only with it's pottential to start NSRL. If it truely is a construction non-starter to be able to start and stop then I do not see a feasible way around the political barrier for the forseeable future. Maybe a post-East/West where more of the state "values" the rail network?
@fattony , I had considered your point already and it is really moot without an electrified service to go through it.
There’s also the 3/4 million people that live in the 4 Western Counties that tend to staunchly oppose big state funding for Boston area projects that they feel has zero benefit for them. They’d need at the absolute very least a guarantee that NSRL would come with a new Amtrak Lobster Bisque that runs all the way to Portland from Albany via Boston.Agreed. And to be honest, I see the question as kind of meaningless. The Commonwealth could afford to do it without federal support, but that would require a political commitment well beyond what exists. When the feds are kicking in 50% to 80%, it's a much easier sell, but that doesn't mean we can't afford it, just that it's not a priority without the assistance. And more to the point, why would we pay for it if we thought there was a good chance to get some federal funds?
You would need to solve for the slow zones, which will cost a fair amount of money.Here is a fiddly question. Specifically on the Eastern Route (at least as far as Lynn), how closely can trains run together? Would the signaling etc permit trains as often as every five minutes? (Assume that roughly half would be running through the NSRL, so capacity through the North Station interlocking isn’t an urgent issue.)
(No, I am not thinking about replacing BLX with Regional Rail —am thinking about something different.)
Good stuff. Yeah, in this scenario I am assuming that Reading has gone to OLX, giving hyper-Eastern full reign at least to the NSRL portal.You would need to solve for the slow zones, which will cost a fair amount of money.
- Eastern Ave. grade crossing in Chelsea imposing something like a 30 MPH speed limit, and unlike the others which cluster around the Chelsea station stop...it's punitive for schedules being out in the open. The 2004 North Shore Transit Improvements study proposed eliminating Eastern Ave. crossing with a road-over-rail bridge. You'd probably have to act on that to have a leg to stand on. Merely tarting up the crossing protection isn't going to whack the restriction, since it's a bad-angle crossing of a wide, high-speed road with lots of gas tanker traffic. This is #1 with a bullet on changes you'd have to make to densify service to that degree.
- Pruning some of the other crossings helps to a lesser degree. It's about the same restriction here, but because the Chelsea station stop (which I'm assuming you're not going to express thru) is in the middle of the cluster it doesn't hurt too bad. Closing superfluous 3rd St., closing 6th St./Arlington St. and making it a pedestrian-only duckunder help...as does upgrading the crossing protection at 2nd and Spruce St.'s (Everett Ave. is already quad-gated).
- Saugus Draw approaches are somewhat speed-restricted due to the age of the bridge. The T preliminarily has an overhaul project in design, but given that the nature of the rehabbed bridge isn't changing I'm not sure if there'll still be a speed restriction afterwards. It would be nice if we could eliminate the movable bridge altogether for a somewhat taller fixed span that could run at 100% full native track speed, since the amount of silt in the river sharply inhibits boat traffic.
Beyond that you might have some congestion issues in Somerville out to Reading Jct. with co-running with :15 Urban Rail on the inner Western Route. That depends somewhat on whether you're able to speed up the terminal district any (though a Sullivan Sq. infill will probably swallow all those gains), so your practical traffic limiter for a hyper-dense Eastern may be the conjoined lines (in which case, OLX-Reading may have to go on the table).
Origin | Destination | Frequency | Mode |
---|---|---|---|
Newburyport Branch | North Station Upper | 2 tph | diesel |
Rockport Branch | North Station Upper | 2 tph | diesel |
Peabody Branch | NSRL | 2 tph | electric |
Lynn or Chelsea (ish) | NSRL | 2-4 tph | electric |
Looking at your North Station Upper... with the exception of Garden events, I'd guess deboardings at North Station will be a third of south bound NSRL through riders. I base this mostly after years of watching throngs of downtown workers sprinting from Post Office Square and beyond to North Station around 5-5:30. And jam-packed Orange Line trains that drain at NS. The only reason North Station is there at all is because we haven't ever had a NSRL. We've just made ourselves expect an unresponsive transportation system instead of demanding one that goes where we need it to... or at least closer.The layer cake I'm toying with:
Origin Destination Frequency Mode Newburyport Branch North Station Upper 2 tph diesel Rockport Branch North Station Upper 2 tph diesel Peabody Branch NSRL 2 tph electric Lynn or Chelsea (ish) NSRL 2-4 tph electric
(One additional benefit of finding a way to turn trains at/near Chelsea is that it'll keep running times tighter on whichever Southside routes are thru-routed.)
I really appreciate what you are all doing but I fear I've been misunderstood. In the sandbagged 2018 study (pg. 63 onward is where we're looking), upstream investments account for $1.32 Billion and Electric trains account for an additional $2.44 Billion which leaves $17.73 billion remaining just for the portals, tunnels, stations, etc for NSRL itself. I agree and fully understand that the upstream investments (including electrification and procurement of electric locomotives) will need to happen either prior to or concurrent with the build of the actual link. You are starting to wade into the weeds on those "upstream investments" and I am explicitly not talking about that part of the project. My question remains: is it possible to break up the $17.73 Billion of the build itself or is this impossible? @BosMaineiac gave their reasons for the answer being, "No" and I am looking to see if that's the limits of reality. Is there no way to break it down to get over the political hurdle of a mega-project (understanding that the figure is sandbagged, but also there is inflation so the real cost could even remain true to the sandbagged figure anyway).The answer, as @fattony alluded to, is that you should look at “piecemeal” differently. Tunneling is one piece. Some other pieces include:
* Rebuilding South Attleboro Station
* Rebuilding Natick Center Station with high platforms and increased capacity to accommodate a third track
* Rebuilding Winchester Center Station with high platforms
* Rebuilding the Newton stations with high platforms
* Double tracking the Franklin Line
* Many, many more
There are so many punch list items that need to be taken care of before an effective North-South Rail Link (NSRL) Tunnel is in use, that this can be done in a piecemeal fashion by focusing on things like completing the rebuild of all of the stations that currently are inaccessible and will need high platforms to serve the future NSRL. Many of the ones I listed, I chose because they are in progress.
I did some analysis on the costs broken out in the 2018 study upthread. (During which analysis I discovered more and more absolutely bonkers things in that study.) I then did a subsequent analysis on potential construction costs for a Green Line Reconfiguration (broken out over two posts); toward the end of that analysis, I applied a different estimation approach to the NSRL, and got broadly similar costs to the 2018 study (when compared to the figures they arrived at before applying a bizarre 362% contingency multiplier).I really appreciate what you are all doing but I fear I've been misunderstood. In the sandbagged 2018 study (pg. 63 onward is where we're looking), upstream investments account for $1.32 Billion and Electric trains account for an additional $2.44 Billion which leaves $17.73 billion remaining just for the portals, tunnels, stations, etc for NSRL itself. I agree and fully understand that the upstream investments (including electrification and procurement of electric locomotives) will need to happen either prior to or concurrent with the build of the actual link. You are starting to wade into the weeds on those "upstream investments" and I am explicitly not talking about that part of the project. My question remains: is it possible to break up the $17.73 Billion of the build itself or is this impossible? @BosMaineiac gave their reasons for the answer being, "No" and I am looking to see if that's the limits of reality. Is there no way to break it down to get over the political hurdle of a mega-project (understanding that the figure is sandbagged, but also there is inflation so the real cost could even remain true to the sandbagged figure anyway).
Is that clearer of a question? Please keep in mind that I'm likely up to speed on a lot of the materials and conversations you are, but I am also not an engineer nor involved in construction (tunneling or otherwise) so am looking for that perspective given that many of you are or tangentially are.
It's true. But the alternative is to electrify everything all the way out to Newburyport (and further, if we ever get an extension to Portsmouth) + Rockport, or use a hacky workaround like dual-modes or a locomotive transfer. I've opined about this before, but if we insist that most of the CR network be electrified before building the NSRL, it'll never get built.Looking at your North Station Upper... with the exception of Garden events, I'd guess deboardings at North Station will be a third of south bound NSRL through riders. I base this mostly after years of watching throngs of downtown workers sprinting from Post Office Square and beyond to North Station around 5-5:30. And jam-packed Orange Line trains that drain at NS. The only reason North Station is there at all is because we haven't ever had a NSRL. We've just made ourselves expect an unresponsive transportation system instead of demanding one that goes where we need it to... or at least closer.
Ever since the first Hackney driver's lobbyist bought off key Boston officials to maintain the South Station <> North Station cab ride shakedown, the NSRL has had a difficult go.
From horse carts to Uber. A Century of Regress.
And for a similar example that ultimately did become part of our transportation system, Tufts Medical was built in the 60s, but wasn't used until 1987.Think of how Charles/MGH was built provisioned for a Red/Blue connector in 2003, and here we are in 2023 still with that out on the horizon.
The RL was programmed to be built to Arlington Center when it was built to Alewife. The town of Arlington revolted from fear of a "crime train" coming to town, so that segment was dropped. If built, it would need to be cut-and-cover under the Minuteman trail. A couple of generations have passed since 1980, so maybe it could have some traction now. Though personally I would place it as a much lower priority than BLX to Lynn or the Red-Blue connector BLX.Probably for the crazy transit pitches thread, but I have wondered about how to break, for example, RL to 128 into incremental parts.
Yeah, but it wasn't built with the intent that it would sit unused for 20 years. Originally it was to be built simultaneous the I-95 Southwest Expressway which Orange would share a cut with. Then 95 got bogged down in community opposition missing any sort of construction starts in the 60's, and finally got turfed by the 1972 highway construction moratorium. At which point the whole SW Corridor had to go back into top-down redesign to re-add the NEC instead of re-routing it over the Fairmount Line, redesign everything for a narrower cut and different street interfaces, and finally re-get to a shovel-ready point by 1979. Had everything gone originally to plan the relocated Orange Line would've opened more like 5 years after construction started on the SW Cove tunnel, rather than 20.And for a similar example that ultimately did become part of our transportation system, Tufts Medical was built in the 60s, but wasn't used until 1987.
You have to maintain that infrastructure that gets pre-built, and pausing projects for long durations drives up cost in the end by having to re-study/re-design/re-bid things in different economic eras. It would be one thing if there was some sort of "use-it-or-lose-it" once-in-a-lifetime future-proofing opportunity that simply had to be taken lest it be lost forever (the NYC 63rd St. example), but it's not something that scales well to just any old project. Not even a well-studied project like NSRL has seen any opportunities for efficiencies by jumping the gun. You're definitely not going to find it in stuff like an under-Minuteman tunnel box for RLX-Arlington. Ultimately it's just get your project phases all done when you're ready to mount them at all, and don't allow the extra red tape too many decades to accumulate.That is thinking in complete segments. I was thinking in components or sub-components (tunnels, portals, yard, station boxes, station fit-out, etc.).
The thinking behind that is whether we could be opportunistic in our transit infrastructure construction. The second level of the 63rd Street tunnel being built, even though the original 1960s LIRR plan was DOA, is an example.