TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 938
- Reaction score
- 1,676
The 275ft number is based on real systems in places like Vancouver and Copenhagen that get high capacity through high frequency automated service rather than fewer, larger trains. (And when there's a lot of people making a lot of smaller journeys that involve transfers, I think this is 100% the way to go.) You absolutely can have trains that size.275 ft platforms are not long enough by today's construction standards. For light rail, GLX's specs called for 300 ft, so they're either built this way (Lechmere is about 350) or have provisions to extend them. For heavy rail, Malden Center's platform is about 410 ft, and Fields Corner 430 ft. Not a magnitude of difference, but it reduces the difference from NSRL to some extent.
Tunneling in downtown is expensive because your worksites are downtown. Simple as that. Once you get outside downtown there are more surface streets, and there are wider surface streets, making transporting equipment and materials easier and less disruptive.Disregarding the question of whether tunneling under downtown immediately implies $$$ when the ROW is very wide, if we assume that's true, then tunneling through Longwood will be even tougher. The hospital buildings are almost as tall and roads are much narrower, sometimes 35' between sidewalks.
Quite simply, I don't agree, and there's one table that summarizes why quite well:but any Urban Ring proposal that completely avoids Kendall is likely a no-go.
A station that is dominated by commuter traffic to office districts is not a reliable source of ridership going forward. Given the choice of Kendall, an office district that is struggling to win back people who transitioned to WFH, and Harvard, a thriving student hub, I'd certainly pick the latter. Building a system tailor specifically to the needs of office working commuters is part of how we got into the mess we're in, it's time to change course.
How many of these things actually require the NSRL? There are no shortage of rail lines around the world that operate 15 minute or better frequencies out of city center terminus stations, providing rapid-transit like service to urban areas. London and its many termini is probably the best example of this, although there are plenty of other cities with similar situations. Yes, throughrunning is better, but is it so much better that it justifies the $18bn pricetag, and likely sacrificing non-radial transit? Again, we've now built a system further dependent on commuters, not for people making regular, everyday journies.I also think you're underselling NSRL's usefulness. It's almost never about allowing Providence-Lowell OSRs, but rather, improving efficiency (with through-running trains), access to multiple downtown destinations and subway connections, transfers for regional travels, and perhaps most important of all, allowing much higher frequencies on all trunks such as <=10 min Fairmount, 15-30 min Providence, and even allowing many urban segments (Fairmount Line, Newtons, Waltham, North Shore) to receive rapid-transit-level service.