He's doubling-down on the 'build the Link then get Regional Rail' sequence again, as well as doubling-down on the easily-disproven 'run-thru is the only way to get frequencies' fallacy.
Yup, he's saying some dumb stuff. He's sticking to some bad talking points.He's doubling-down on the 'build the Link then get Regional Rail' sequence again, as well as doubling-down on the easily-disproven 'run-thru is the only way to get frequencies' fallacy.
The host pushed back on that saying it's a "leap" to sell that as a fait accompli, and smartly cited the SEPTA example as a run-thru that did not deliver the frequencies. He really didn't have an answer for that other than "but SEPTA sucks."
He also seems to think there's a housing bonanza to be built on Widett Circle instead of the rail yard, while simultaneously saying "the rail yard is going to be underwater in any storm". WHUT?!? Doesn't that mean all the housing you're going to build on that moonscape is also going to be underwater unless it's on stilts above...I don't know...a railyard that can be easily evacuated???
No real surprises. It sounds like the study is going to be an exciting read, so that's something to look forward to. But Moulton's really, really set in his ways and backed stubbornly into a pretty non-persuasive pitch because it's unable to create any advance perception about the frequency angle.
But is it, though? The study seems to be comparing tankapalooza numbers for SSX with un-tanked numbers for NSRL. Only a minority of SSX's bloated cost was going to be the track and platform work. Most of it was going to real estate redevelopment of the USPS complex, a palatial new headhouse for the Dorchester Ave. side, and a host of unrelated things right down to a Dot Ave. Harborwalk extension. With other things, like the layover yard, now broken out from SSX into separate projects leaving some itemizations very dated. How would SSX fare if you boiled it down to just the jump-startable transportation project-elements and let the real estate interests figure their own way out like the air rights figured their own way out? How would SSX fare if we could honestly answer how many additional platforms Regional Rail ops reform requires? It's not zero tracks like the zero-sum advocates claim (and Moulton is definitely not on TransitMatters' side with his conclusions there), but is the requirement the +7 tracks the DEIR/FEIR claims or some intermediate number? Is it still a sticker-shock number vs. a sticker-shock number then? We don't know, because no one's looking amid all the advocate-on-advocate fighting over this.
Caltrain's new EMU'd schedules are probably a good guide, since those are based on actual buyable EMU's that the T was bid (unlike TransitMatters' modeling-spec EMU's which were [1] not bid to the T, [2] don't fit East Coast platform heights so are inapplicable here, [3] used the intercity-class versions that are too expensive for commuter service, and [4] specced that all track on the T be raised to 100 MPH speed limit damn the costs). Those EMU's shrink an end-to-end San Francisco-to-San Jose 100 minute local schedule down to 75 minutes, or a 25% reduction. The NEC Commission estimates that Providence would shrink from 1:10 to 57 minutes (18%), and Wickford Jct. from 1:40 to 1:24 (16%) by applying Regional Rail practices with similar-class EMU's. It matters how many stations are on the line. Caltrain has a LOT of them on its local schedules (22), so it has comparably many more starts-and-stops than a Providence/Wickford or Lowell. So depending on the density of stops on a given T schedule, you'd be projecting reductions of 15-25% per trip.
And adding to this there is some clear shenanigans going on with that economic benefit comparison, with the claim that NSRL would provide 10 times as much economic benefit as SSX (Or more accurately RER minus NSRL), which is frankly just absurd.
Agreed. What we actually need here, and what nobody seems to be making is a full report (Or series of reports) detailing:
I generally agree with you. I also have a lot of questions about the methodology of the study, and I want to see a good apple-to-apples comparison. But is there some reason you already think they're screwing up the SSX cost estimates? We don't have the report, so we don't really know what they think is necessary for SSX, or if their assumptions are reasonable. Moulton did say Linda Bilmes conducted the study, and from a quick glance she seems like a reasonable researcher for something like this, for whatever that's worth. Maybe someone on here knows better than I do if she's a crazy or a hack. So I'm not sure what looks so possibly bad about this study (other than Moulton being kinda crap about conveying the details)
I could be wrong but I personally feel that yes you need to sell it on that, but maybe even more so you need to sell it on the statewide benefits it will bring. The rest of the state already feels left behind by Boston and even cities and towns close to Boston would rather their tax money be used on something that is going to benefit them vs just boston. I think hes on the right path moving away from just calling it the north south rail link vs emphasizing how its an entire region rail link. I think we should be pushing the idea of regional rail, electrification, and the rail link as all one greater system that is going to benefit the entire state. I feel like its a much easier sell to say its going to benefit 100 towns/cities with faster service and much better connections to boston and beyond connecting all cities/towns on the system together vs just saying it will help someone taking the subway have less transfers.
Yes, this is a benefit, but I don't think marketing it as a 5 minute travel time improvement for some East Boston and North Shore commuters is the way to sell it.
It is much more than that for the North Shore. Lynnites? could cut their commute times in half, and have access to so many more jobs
pedestrianobservations.com
If 10x the benefits sounds absurd, what number sounds plausible to you? Double the benefits? Quadruple? NSRL clearly has a lot more benefits over SSX, right? In his interview, Moulton said SSX is expected to fix South Station's capacity problem for a couple decades, but quad-tracked NSRL fixes that for a century. If that's correct, that's a big difference. SSX can't do anything to help frequencies on the north side, but NSRL can. The new possible connections from NSRL really would be a big deal. Offering a couple of million south side suburbanites a one seat ride to North Station is big. Offering a million north side suburbanites one seat rides to South Station, Back Bay, Lansdowne, and Ruggles is huge. We don't know what they think the possible difference in frequencies would be, but that could make a huge difference on the Fairmount line. That could be the difference between fast regional rail and Boston effectively getting a whole new subway line.
I would also like to know the answer to some of these questions. TransitMatters have tried to answer some of this. I expect the Harvard study addresses some of it. They hopefully make reasonable assumptions and estimates for some of it, too.
Yeah, I really think people who have experienced such a system would easily buy in to building one here. My family went to Paris in 2019, and two of my kids and I took the RER-C to Versailles. It was a fantastic day (we especially enjoyed the palace grounds). I understood the nature of the transportation we took, and was green with envy, particularly when considering how easy it would be to achieve something similar in Boston. At any rate, turns out my son (16 at the tiem) didn't even realize we weren't riding the Metro. To him, the RER and Metro were indistinguishable.
Add in coordinated schedules with coordinated, cross-platform transfers and you would have a world-class system. With coordinated transfers, 2- and 3-seat rides stop being objectionable.
You seem to think that because more people are working from home, no one is commuting into the city. Actually, hundreds of thousands of people are trying to get downtown Boston every day. The commuter rail ridership is roughly back to pre-covid levels and the highways are similarly packed with stop and go traffic. There is a huge need for better transportation into the city. People regularly say this in polls. It is also not hard to find people who say they would want to work in the office more if their commute was better. NSRL seems good politically because it's good for Boston, but also has major benefits for people in suburbia. There is a broader political coalition you can build around it.