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

[Mongo]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Whighlander: "No one needs a one seat ride from Lowell to Providence!"

Everyone Else: "It's not about through running one seaters."

Whighlander: "WHY DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON ONE SEATERS?!?!?!"

It's about how many people on the Lowell line would love to get off at South Station, Backbay, or Ruggles and would therefore be kept off the orange line. Or would want a one seat transfer to get to the new Boston Landing station or Yawkey instead of crowding the green line.

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Simply put No! No! No! No! No!

The thru running benefit is spreading North Side trains on to South Station and Back Bay; and South and West Side trains up to North Station.

This DRAMATICALLY increases the effective capacity of the central subway system by spreading the load of all those commuter rail riders who have to transfer through the central subway to get to their workplace today.

This is not rocket science, just basic network capacity planning.

I'd like to see the computer model on that. DoT should just have a computer model of traffic patterns and transit schedules which they can run these proposals through.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I'd like to see the computer model on that. DoT should just have a computer model of traffic patterns and transit schedules which they can run these proposals through.

Network capacity models probably exist.

But, I doubt that the T has the start-to-end ridership data to populate the model. I am not aware of them collecting the data that way.

Also, ridership patterns will likely change (and probably pretty quickly) with this capability in place.

 

[CantabAmager]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Boston MPO 2008-2009 MBTA Passenger Surveys will have 75% of the data that your looking for. It isn't the most precise dataset available but it'll give you a reliable ballpark number and it'll have the numbers of origin-destination pairing (all the sections will) and for how riders of a mode utilize the transfer chain. I can give it a scan a little bit later, but I guarantee the surveys will have what you're asking for.

EDIT: probably not precise enough for a model, however, it certainly isn't seeking to measure how people will respond to altered circumstance

 

[CantabAmager]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Ok so to sketch what kind of data is available from the surveys, here's some datapoints:

North Station Egress (how people exit the station) for riders on the Lowell Line (which I'm assuming is the only one that's receive el + portal):
Walk - 51%
MBTA Bus - 2.7%
MBTA Rapid Transit - 41.7%

Of those transferring to Rapid transit, the most frequented stations the riders alighted at are (most to least): State, Back Bay, DTX, Arlington, Longwood, Tufts NEMC, Copley, South Station, Government Center, Chinatown. So it'd stand to reason that NSRL could strip about 800-1000 current Lowell Line rapid transfers from the rapid transit system (if there was a Central Station to take over the State-destination trips).

The passenger surveys have these numbers broken down by line, by station, etc... (so for example, Haverhill Line riders tend to prefer Arlington rather than than State, etc.)

For all southside + northside transfers from rail to Rapid Transit (at any station), the most popular origin destinations are as follows (number of riders per day):

Kendall Sq (1400)
State (1100)
Back Bay (850)
Not RT, but SL2 cops about 750 transfer per day
Harvard (700)
DTX (700)
Arlington (500)
Central (500)
Charles/MGH (500)
North Station (400)

etc ad infinitum

Edit: and here's the link to the surveys

 

[underground]

Re: North-South Rail Link

It's about how many people on the Lowell line would love to get off at South Station, Backbay, or Ruggles and would therefore be kept off the orange line. Or would want a one seat transfer to get to the new Boston Landing station or Yawkey instead of crowding the green line.

Exactly. Plus capacity expansion. Anyone who thinks it's about going from Lowell to Providence is SEVERELY missing the point.

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Network capacity models probably exist.

But, I doubt that the T has the start-to-end ridership data to populate the model. I am not aware of them collecting the data that way.

Also, ridership patterns will likely change (and probably pretty quickly) with this capability in place.

Google would have the data from location services on their smartphones and it looks like they want "to improve life in cities for everyone through the application of technology to solve urban problems"

I don't think paper or spreadsheet models cut it. Google already incorporates traffic prediction algorithms in their map direction service. It would seem to be the next logical step to apply computational power in order to simulate changes in the transportation system and see what effect they have on the system as a whole. This goes to ROI and what we are actually going to get out of these proposals.

I think we can all agree that having the commuter rail system disconnected into two parts with very little ability to move between North and South is undesirable. But being able to demonstrate exactly what the models show would be the effects on both the mass transit system and the road network is important for getting buy in and validating that the costs benefit actually makes sense. It could be that the N-S link will improve car traffic by getting people off the roads... Or any number of network effects that have not been contemplated or highlighted because we don't have the model to look at. It is difficult to project out past 5 or 10 years, but it should still be possible to model the current system as it stands now and then introduce this change or a few changes and see what might actually happen.

Maybe N-S Link on its own doesn't make sense, but in combination with a Green line branch on Grand Junction out to a new West Station it does make sense. The lack of N-S rail link means Grand Junction is likely to remain necessary as-is, but very much underutilized.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Whighlander: "No one needs a one seat ride from Lowell to Providence!"

Everyone Else: "It's not about through running one seaters."

Whighlander: "WHY DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON ONE SEATERS?!?!?!"

For someone who gets on Rifleman for "point shoot aim" tactics, Westie is almost always guilty of the same. Strawmen are on the march.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Exactly. Plus capacity expansion. Anyone who thinks it's about going from Lowell to Providence is SEVERELY missing the point.

Yes. The initial benefit is all about load-spreading more efficiently. Five years post-NSRL... maybe commuter living patterns will start to shift to take advantage of the new train schedules, maybe not. But saying that "no one's going to go from Plymouth to Salem on D-Day Plus 1 is missing the point entirely.

 

[The EGE]

Re: North-South Rail Link

The MBTA keeps very detailed (and anonymized / aggregated) ODx (origin-destination-interchange) data for many if not all Charlie-based trips. The CR end can be inferred from monthly passes, surveys, MOVES, and other well-established sources of data. CTPS has several very good modelers on staff and decades of experience estimating ridership for every major MBTA service change and extension.

There are numerous political, financial, and practical barriers to completing this project. But empirically-based demand predictions are not one of them. When the time comes for an EIS, we will have very accurate numbers to work with.

Besides direct run-throughs of getting Lowell to Ruggles or Ashland to North Station, the first-tier transfer hubs (Porter, Ruggles, Yawkey, JFK/UMass) and major suburban commuter destinations get a big bonus from two-seat through-downtown rides. Maybe you don't get a direct train from Yawkey to Gloucester, but if you can make a cross-platform transfer at South Station you probably don't care because it's a hundred times less miserable than the Green Line.

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

The T should be investing money into electrification (or at least plans to when the current batch of locomotives is nearing end of life). Electrification and system-wide level boarding are precisely what any passenger railroad looking to improve itself should be aiming to do. It's not crazy, it's literally the most sensible and reasonable thing that they could do.

So it probably won't happen.

Mathew -- agreed

Spend the $ on electrification of all of the CR lines

then you can run EMU's at high frequency to / from where ever and with a bit more $ putting in some short bypass tracks and some improved controls the EMUs could then run virtually non-stop point to point

Lowell to Boston or Salem to Boston at the same frequency and same transit time as Alewife to South Station

 

[bigeman312]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Mathew -- agreed

Spend the $ on electrification of all of the CR lines

then you can run EMU's at high frequency to / from where ever and with a bit more $ putting in some short bypass tracks and some improved controls the EMUs could then run virtually non-stop point to point

Lowell to Boston or Salem to Boston at the same frequency and same transit time as Alewife to South Station

You realize this can be mostly accomplished with DMUs? The biggest thing accomplished through electrification is the ultimate use of the N-S Rail Link. Have you finally come around on that now that everyone is unanimously showing you why your stance of opposition is based on faulty premises and not valid in any way?

EDITED: removed the things that weren't very nice to whighlander

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

The MBTA keeps very detailed (and anonymized / aggregated) ODx (origin-destination-interchange) data for many if not all Charlie-based trips. The CR end can be inferred from monthly passes, surveys, MOVES, and other well-established sources of data. CTPS has several very good modelers on staff and decades of experience estimating ridership for every major MBTA service change and extension.

There are numerous political, financial, and practical barriers to completing this project. But empirically-based demand predictions are not one of them. When the time comes for an EIS, we will have very accurate numbers to work with.

Besides direct run-throughs of getting Lowell to Ruggles or Ashland to North Station, the first-tier transfer hubs (Porter, Ruggles, Yawkey, JFK/UMass) and major suburban commuter destinations get a big bonus from two-seat through-downtown rides. Maybe you don't get a direct train from Yawkey to Gloucester, but if you can make a cross-platform transfer at South Station you probably don't care because it's a hundred times less miserable than the Green Line.

EDE -- you keep trying to find a justification -- no longer One Seat Ride -- now its Cross Platform Transfer

Yawkee to Gloucester for example inveterate tourist trip of iconic Fenway to iconic Fisherman's statue

• today:
  • foot -- Fenway Park to Yawkee CR
  • Worcester CR -- Yawkee CR to Back Bay CR
  • foot -- Back Bay CR -- to Back Bay OL -- cross platform transfer
  • OL -- Back Bay OL to NS OL
  • foot -- NS OL to NS CR -- cross platform transfer
  • Rockport CR -- NS CR to Gloucester CR
  • foot -- Gloucester CR to Fisherman's Statue
• after spending untold B$:
  • foot -- Fenway Park to Yawkee CR
  • CR Worcester / Salem line -- Yawkee CR to South Station deep platform
  • foot -- South Station deep -- South Station deep cross platform transfer
  • CR Lowell / Providence Line -- SS deep to NS deep
  • foot & elevator -- NS deep to NS surface -- cross platform transfer
  • CR Rockport Line -- NS CR to Gloucester CR
  • foot Gloucester CR to Fisherman's Statue

didn't see much of a change except for elevator riding from deep under NS to the current NS and changes in the names of some of the through lines

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

EDE -- you keep trying to find a justification -- no longer One Seat Ride -- now its Cross Platform Transfer

Yawkee to Gloucester for example inveterate tourist trip of iconic Fenway to iconic Fisherman's statue

• today:
  • foot -- Fenway Park to Yawkee CR
  • Worcester CR -- Yawkee CR to Back Bay CR
  • foot -- Back Bay CR -- to Back Bay OL -- cross platform transfer
  • OL -- Back Bay OL to NS OL
  • foot -- NS OL to NS CR -- cross platform transfer
  • Rockport CR -- NS CR to Gloucester CR
  • foot -- Gloucester CR to Fisherman's Statue
• after spending untold B$:
  • foot -- Fenway Park to Yawkee CR
  • CR Worcester / Salem line -- Yawkee CR to South Station deep platform
  • foot -- South Station deep -- South Station deep cross platform transfer
  • CR Lowell / Providence Line -- SS deep to NS deep
  • foot & elevator -- NS deep to NS surface -- cross platform transfer
  • CR Rockport Line -- NS CR to Gloucester CR
  • foot Gloucester CR to Fisherman's Statue

didn't see much of a change except for elevator riding from deep under NS to the current NS and changes in the names of some of the through lines

First: Don't belittle the point by making it about tourists. It's about commuters. Full stop.

Second: It doesn't have to be cross-platform. It would depend on where the T found demand. NSRL allows the T to mix-match destinations at will, based on the demand. There's no reason a train from Gloucester couldn't through run to Yawkey. On the South side, both the Worcester Line and the NEC would feed the NSRL. On the North side both the Eastern and Western routes would feed the NSRL. Punt on the Fitchburg, Fairmount and Old Colony portals. Those riders would continue to have to transfer in the surface terminals at North/South stations - and would have the choice of transferring to Red/Green/Orange, or going down a level to the NSRL platform.

 

[cbrett]

Re: North-South Rail Link

EDE -- you keep trying to find a justification -- no longer One Seat Ride -- now its Cross Platform Transfer

Yawkee to Gloucester for example inveterate tourist trip of iconic Fenway to iconic Fisherman's statue

• today:
  • foot -- Fenway Park to Yawkee CR
  • Worcester CR -- Yawkee CR to Back Bay CR
  • foot -- Back Bay CR -- to Back Bay OL -- cross platform transfer
  • OL -- Back Bay OL to NS OL
  • foot -- NS OL to NS CR -- cross platform transfer
  • Rockport CR -- NS CR to Gloucester CR
  • foot -- Gloucester CR to Fisherman's Statue
• after spending untold B$:
  • foot -- Fenway Park to Yawkee CR
  • CR Worcester / Salem line -- Yawkee CR to South Station deep platform
    [*] foot -- South Station deep -- South Station deep cross platform transfer
    [*] CR Lowell / Providence Line -- SS deep to NS deep
    [*] foot & elevator -- NS deep to NS surface -- cross platform transfer
    [*] CR Rockport Line -- NS CR to Gloucester CR
  • foot Gloucester CR to Fisherman's Statue

didn't see much of a change except for elevator riding from deep under NS to the current NS and changes in the names of some of the through lines

This bolded part implies that neither of the commuter lines (Worcester or Rockport) are running through the link, and has the proverbial tourist using the link as a half assed shuttle between the two stations. What's much more likely is that they make one or no transfers at South Station either using a short turning Riverside EMU or thru-running Worcester to connect to the Rockport line under either SS or NS.

Another aspect to consider is the rapid development being planned and built around both stations, without serious capacity upgrades the subway is going to be hitting even heavier crush loads in the core. However, building the link will not only reduce a large number of CR-Rapid Transit transfers in the core but open up both sites to a huge TOD boon. I wonder how much one seat rides to the entire commuter rail system is worth to the developers, and if they could pitch in for the link.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Why are you all saying NRSL is about one particular point? You're all flip flopping and arguing that your reasoning for NSRL is the sole reason to build. NSRL is multifaceted. One seat rides, eliminating three-seat rides, cross-platform transfers, eliminating stub-end terminal congestion, reducing subway/downtown congestion, equipment rotation, layover and maintenance centralization, establishing a denser transit network, expanding our existing infrastructure's capacity, increased inter-city options. And many more. There is no one reason for NSRL. The benefit of NSRL is how many benefits you get out of one project, not just one benefit in particular.

 

[underground]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Who is "you all"?

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're talking about Urb...

 

[Matthew]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Anyone who currently rides CR to North Station -> Orange Line -> Back Bay CR to the south has the patience of a saint. Even worse, somehow commuting into North Station -> ??? -> and out from South Station (and return). I think I met one person who said that they did that for a little while... crazy. To estimate demand you can't just look at current T travel (which might be good for trips like North Station -> Ruggles), you'd have look at all-modes travel and latent demand. Anyone going between north CR territory and south territory on a regular basis now is probably driving (through the Big Dig, no less).

And DMUs are not "almost as good" as EMUs. A modern EMU has high power-to-weight ratios. It doesn't have to carry it's own fuel source. It can [briefly] summon a large piece of the output of a massive power station to quickly accelerate back to speed. Electrification as well as system-wide level boarding are both essential pieces (about equal weight, perhaps) towards making the system function as rapidly and efficiently as possible. Think about it: what are the characteristics of every busy metro rapid transit system you can think of? Do you know any that run on diesel? Even if they're fully aboveground (such as the old NY steam-powered elevateds were -- and those were converted to electric in an effort to compete with the newfangled subway). They're all electrified and they all strive for level boarding (with varying levels of success).

To me, the goal for commuter rail ought to be to transform it into something more like regional rapid transit, albeit with some differences. It's more heavily branched than a metro rapid transit could be. There'll be longer headways on the branches. There'll probably continue to be bi-levels, or a mix of vehicle types depending upon the need. You might have to support several variants of stopping patterns (not to mention the regular intercity trains), although they should converge as the system becomes more efficient and as you get closer to the trunk (in order to make schedules work).

DMUs might be a step on the way there, but it's a far cry from the flexibility EMUs give you.

 

[Arlington]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I live in West Medford, Zone 1A on the Lowell line. The (leisure) trips Home->NS->Symphony/Pru/Copley are beyond my patience on the current network and we drive on any trip like that (and so go rarely) And often the Transit App would rather I do something crazy like the 77->Harvard-->1 (all bus) rather than rail given long CR headways.

Give me a 1 seat or 2 seat ride to Back Bay or Yawkey (or an easier CR to OL/GL at Back Bay) and that'd be a slam dunk commute/leisure trip that is effectively unserved today.