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

[CantabAmager]

Re: North-South Rail Link

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?

There are plenty of suburbans in Europe that are diesel. Now, those systems' length generally sits in between our rapid transit and our regional rail system (but if the MBTA followed through on the century-old 10 mile plan they'd be similar in length), but running an RT (2/5/10/20 min headways depending upon peak vs non-peak, branch vs mainline) suburban system is fully possible with diesels. There just aren't any FRA compliant DMUs of that type employed in the US, all we have here are mainline LRVs. If your point is that very few cities achieve RT service levels and coverage with mainline LRVs, then I think it stands - but full-scale DMUs can absolutely function as the backbone of successful suburban rr.

 

[tangent]

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.

Which makes it extremely hard to justify. Saving 2 minutes for a hundred people here and there is great, etc etc. But until you can add it all up in a detailed and verifiable way and say $X Billion is going to save Y million commuting hours and enable $Z Billions in economic activity, then we are just chasing our tails because no responsible person would ever sign off on a major investment like this with such dubious benefits.

I think the benefits are probably in the $1 to $2Billion range over a 40 to 50 year period... So probably not worth $6B.

 

[cbrett]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Which makes it extremely hard to justify. Saving 2 minutes for a hundred people here and there is great, etc etc. But until you can add it all up in a detailed and verifiable way and say $X Billion is going to save Y million commuting hours and enable $Z Billions in economic activity, then we are just chasing our tails because no responsible person would ever sign off on a major investment like this with such dubious benefits.

I think the benefits are probably in the $1 to $2Billion range over a 40 to 50 year period... So probably not worth $6B.

Getting the discussion back towards reality, assuming NSRL does get built then what time frame makes the most sense for it's construction based on the current equipment and SSX needs? Obviously the demand is there, and the project will be worth it, but at what point in the future does it make the most sense to build? Obviously you want to get the most out of the new HSP-46's, so would electrification would have to coincide with the next loco replacement? Also, could the T use the Indigo Line plan as a way to start stringing wire and purchase EMUs or does it make more economic sense to build it all at once (for the first NSRL lines at least)?

I feel like if the T pitched the Indigo Line using EMUs through the link as a brand new subway for cheap it would be way more politically feasible. Many naysayers are either attacking fringe benefits like tourism and suburb to suburb commuters, or are bitching that the inner burbs are still getting the short end of the transit stick. Instead of a CR improvement associated with suburban commuters, instead pitch it as one tunnel for long awaited rapid transit expansion to under-served communities like Lynn and the Fairmount Line.

 

[CantabAmager]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I feel like if the T pitched the Indigo Line using EMUs through the link as a brand new subway for cheap it would be way more politically feasible. Many naysayers are either attacking fringe benefits like tourism and suburb to suburb commuters, or are bitching that the inner burbs are still getting the short end of the transit stick. Instead of a CR improvement associated with suburban commuters, instead pitch it as one tunnel for long awaited rapid transit expansion to under-served communities like Lynn and the Fairmount Line.

Those naysayers aren't likely to be persuaded - hell, Whigh still thinks NSRL would be worse than our current set-up.

So here's the problem, as I see it: The MBTA can ramp up NSRL whenever they're ready (and the funds are available - which will be never), the procurement issues don't dictate when the project kicks off - HSPs, nextgen diesels, dmus, etc... will still play a role for N/S terminal-running, non-electrified routes. The issue is in selling different communities different levels of service:
Worcester + Provi gets the EMUs, get the service density increases, get a "new mode"
Lowell gets the same - and maybe, just maybe, Haverhill via Wildcat gets strung up.

That's it for immediate impact, "new" services for NSRL. Not that the other lines can't be electrified later, but it's unlikely to happen in one fell swoop. So the State will have to sell RER-style Suburbans to W/P/L, DMU shuttle service to Waltham and the Dorchester Branch, improved (but not drastically) service on the termini-running lines, and probably a rapid transit extension for Lynn on the North Shore and maybe up to Reading if Melrose and Wakefield can be bothered.

It's a tough sell in terms of price, but I'd argue the varying levels of service at the outset of any NSRL discussion are going to be a dealbreaker - ppl in Waltham aren't going to be pleased with a bitty DMU when the gentry in Newton gets a sleek new EMU.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

IF Fairmount is a political winner than by all means, push for it... but it greatly expands the costs of the project because it requires the construction of a second southern portal and tunnel leads.


Base build ought to be:

• One portal with lead tunnels on the North side that serves the New Hampshire Main, and the B&M Eastern and Western Routes (Lowell, Haverhill, Gloucester & Rockport, and Amtrak Downeaster).
  
• One portal with lead tunnels on the South side that serves the Northeast Corridor and the Boston & Albany (Providence, some Franklin, Worcester, NEC points south, Lakeshore Ltd)
  
• Two track NSRL with a tunnel provisioned for an additional two. Finish the tunnel so that all that needs to be done in the future is lay the track.
  
• North Station Under with a connection to the Green, Orange, and North Station surface CR.
  
• South Station Under with a connection to the Red, Silver, and South Station surface CR.

Other add-ons contribute greatly to the overall cost while providing decreasing benefit to the overall project. Maybe tack-ons later.

• Fitchburg requires a portal all its own because of its trajectory. No branching or opportunities for expansion to high-density areas. Sorry Fitchburg riders, you have to transfer at North Station surface.
  
• Old Colony and Fairmount each need separate portals and long lead tunnels. Probably not worth it for Fairmount, though if any additional portal should be added, it's this one. Old Colony shouldn't get a portal until (at the earliest) the one-track pinch in Dorchester is remedied - a mega-project on its own... Sorry Plymouth, Kingston, Greenbush and Middleborough riders... you'll have to continue to transfer at South Station surface. Ditto to Indigo Line riders, unless Fairmount is found to be worth the additional cost.
  
• Central Station (Aquarium Under) provides a Blue Line connection, but is otherwise entirely unnecessary to the functionality of the Link. Provision for it in the future, but don't let it bloat the initial project cost.

 

[fattony]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Which makes it extremely hard to justify. Saving 2 minutes for a hundred people here and there is great, etc etc. But until you can add it all up in a detailed and verifiable way and say $X Billion is going to save Y million commuting hours and enable $Z Billions in economic activity, then we are just chasing our tails because no responsible person would ever sign off on a major investment like this with such dubious benefits.

That is not the right way to approach a public infrastructure value judgement. The logic that says a transit project needs to "pay for itself" is the same logic that says rebuilding after a hurricane is a wonderful contribution to GDP. If you use the wrong economic indicator to measure something you get the wrong answer. (obviously we don't want more hurricanes even though they are great for GDP).

Improving the transit network will hopefully result in fewer people buying cars, fewer 4000 sq foot McMansions built, and fewer Crate and Barrel sofas filling "sitting rooms" that no one sits in. Those are certainly negatives in the "economic stimulus" column. There will also be fewer kids with asthma making doctor visits and fewer people filling potholes. And what about the poor car insurance adjusters?? Look at at the lost economic activity!

How do you calculate the true value to society of reduced air pollution? Increased community interaction in walkable neighborhoods? Decreased stress? Reduced foreign oil dependence? Those are hard to quantify in $$, but are obviously part of your ROI.

I'm not saying NSRL is worth doing at any price. I'm just saying don't accidentally use Reaganomics in your calculations.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: North-South Rail Link

That is not the right way to approach a public infrastructure value judgement. The logic that says a transit project needs to "pay for itself" is the same logic that says rebuilding after a hurricane is a wonderful contribution to GDP. If you use the wrong economic indicator to measure something you get the wrong answer. (obviously we don't want more hurricanes even though they are great for GDP).

Improving the transit network will hopefully result in fewer people buying cars, fewer 4000 sq foot McMansions built, and fewer Crate and Barrel sofas filling "sitting rooms" that no one sits in. Those are certainly negatives in the "economic stimulus" column. There will also be fewer kids with asthma making doctor visits and fewer people filling potholes. And what about the poor car insurance adjusters?? Look at at the lost economic activity!

How do you calculate the true value to society of reduced air pollution? Increased community interaction in walkable neighborhoods? Decreased stress? Reduced foreign oil dependence? Those are hard to quantify in $$, but are obviously part of your ROI.

I'm not saying NSRL is worth doing at any price. I'm just saying don't accidentally use Reaganomics in your calculations.

+1

 

[Balerion]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Novice question:

Has there been any consideration given to procuring EMUs for use on the Providence Line, since it is already electrified as part of the NEC? It would be a good advertisement for the benefits of the electrification of the CR system and would make the NSRL sales pitch that much more tangible (and slightly cheaper, with some EMUs already in service).

 

[Subdivisions]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Nah, as far as I know of. To get EMUs on the providence line the T not only has buy the trains (at the loss of fleet flexibility since they can only be assigned to one line) but would also need to build/add a maintenence facility for them as well.

 

[citylover94]

Re: North-South Rail Link

They would also have to electrify some sections of track that are only used by the MBTA and haven't been electrified if I remember correctly when Alon talked about it he mentioned some sections of track only have the center tracks electrified.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: North-South Rail Link

They would also have to electrify some sections of track that are only used by the MBTA and haven't been electrified if I remember correctly when Alon talked about it he mentioned some sections of track only have the center tracks electrified.

I was about to post this. At some stations, there is passing track that is electrified, while the track that services the platforms is not electrified. One example is the newest station: Wickford Junction. Overall, though, a full electrification of the Providence Line would be MUCH cheaper and easier than any other line which is not electrified at all.

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

.... 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....

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.....

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.....

Mathew -- Thanks to Technology Explosion -- We are currently in a period of profound change in metropolitan transportation both core to core and within a core

On on hand we have B-787 and A380 changing the rules for getting from one global core metro to another -- small number of bulk flights and lots of point to point smaller flights

On the other extreme the combination of Uber-style with Self-driving electric vehicles will revolutionize the local and within metro transit universe

In the long-run -- say 20 years -- I think the rail-based T will "be equivalent of the A380" -- hauling a lot of people to and from a few destinations -- and the roll of the B787 will be played by the self-driving Uber-likes and other vehicles untethered to the rails

What we should not do now is spend a lot of money digging a tunnel which was conceived of when the idea of Uber and self-driving, GPS, etc., not part of the lexicon

The better solution might be something entirely different -- and it may be soon apparent

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

That is not the right way to approach a public infrastructure value judgement. The logic that says a transit project needs to "pay for itself" is the same logic that says rebuilding after a hurricane is a wonderful contribution to GDP. If you use the wrong economic indicator to measure something you get the wrong answer. (obviously we don't want more hurricanes even though they are great for GDP).

Improving the transit network will hopefully result in fewer people buying cars, fewer 4000 sq foot McMansions built, and fewer Crate and Barrel sofas filling "sitting rooms" that no one sits in. Those are certainly negatives in the "economic stimulus" column. There will also be fewer kids with asthma making doctor visits and fewer people filling potholes. And what about the poor car insurance adjusters?? Look at at the lost economic activity!

How do you calculate the true value to society of reduced air pollution? Increased community interaction in walkable neighborhoods? Decreased stress? Reduced foreign oil dependence? Those are hard to quantify in $$, but are obviously part of your ROI.

I'm not saying NSRL is worth doing at any price. I'm just saying don't accidentally use Reaganomics in your calculations.

Fattony -- you sound as though you are using inSanedernomics in your analysis

There is absolutely no way that you can possibly quantify the effect of the construction or the No-Build option of the N-S Rail Link on the building of McMansions let alone the incidence of asthma in inner city neighborhoods or potholes that need filling

You just might be able to estimate using current commute patterns what CR-Line or Station would have an increase or decrease in use within a 10 year window -- beyond that level of modeling and that time frame you might as well use an old Crystal Sphere or ask the Oracle @ Delphi

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

^ That Sanders portmanteau is terrible. Come up with something better.

 

[fattony]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Fattony -- you sound as though you are using inSanedernomics in your analysis

There is absolutely no way that you can possibly quantify the effect of the construction or the No-Build option of the N-S Rail Link on the building of McMansions let alone the incidence of asthma in inner city neighborhoods or potholes that need filling

You just might be able to estimate using current commute patterns what CR-Line or Station would have an increase or decrease in use within a 10 year window -- beyond that level of modeling and that time frame you might as well use an old Crystal Sphere or ask the Oracle @ Delphi

I'm an engineer, I know damn well the value of quantifying and using objective measures. My point is that comparing the right quantities is really really hard. The mistake that economists and politicians (and social scientists and doctors and ... pretty much everyone) make all the time is to just quantify why they can quantify and ignore the rest because it is too hard. There are always a bunch of crappy assumptions in the model that some ivory tower academic understands fully, but the politician looking to make policy doesn't understand at all.

Expanding on my example:

GDP is a measure of economic activity. Therefore a big GDP and a growing GDP mean a growing economy, right? And a growing economy means an increase in national wealth, hopefully an increase in standard of living, right? EVERYONE knows this from Econ101.

Except NONE of that is the whole truth. GDP is not a measure of net change in national wealth. It is a measure of what money got spent on. There is no entry in the GDP ledger for New Orleans being destroyed - only entries for the money spend rebuilding.

Now, let's say hypothetically (and allow me to exaggerate a bit to make my point) that NSRL would contribute significantly to decreasing the cost of living in Boston. That is obviously a good thing, but if you measure with the wrong yard stick you could be tricked into thinking it was bad. You might find that less money is spent on stuff like cars and gas and daycare in the local economy. Boston's economy is going down the tubes! But wait, what was really happening was Bostonians had so much extra time and money that they could look after their own kids and spent their extra cash on vacations to Cabo. Obviously the quality of life for Bostonians was improved, but it could show up as "bad" for Boston's economy.

I'm just saying we all have to be careful about playing armchair economist. There is a natural temptation to use the tool available to measure the things that tool measures. There is always more to the story and in public policy there is always a subjective value judgement made by the deciders. If everything could truly be boiled down to hard numbers we would just let Watson the Computer run the city/state/country/world.

 

[ceo]

Re: North-South Rail Link

[*]Two track NSRL with a tunnel provisioned for an additional two. Finish the tunnel so that all that needs to be done in the future is lay the track.

Why go to the expense of building two tunnels if you're only going to use one of them? That makes no sense at all.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Why go to the expense of building two tunnels if you're only going to use one of them? That makes no sense at all.

Because the major expense of electrifying lines is too much to fathom doing right now, and excavating the second tunnel is much cheaper when done simultaneously with the first tunnel.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Why go to the expense of building two tunnels if you're only going to use one of them? That makes no sense at all.

It's just one divided up tunnel. Only lay two tracks.

 

[Matthew]

Re: North-South Rail Link

In the long-run -- say 20 years -- I think the rail-based T will "be equivalent of the A380" -- hauling a lot of people to and from a few destinations

You've just made a strong argument for building the NSRL and doing the full electrification/level boarding buildout that I've suggested.

The new regional rapid transit system (it's not merely 'commuter' rail anymore) with its long station-spacing, high average speeds, full accessibility, short dwell times, and easy connections becomes the major network of trunk lines hauling a lot of people to destinations all across the Boston metro region.

Ideally most stations would become hubs of their own, town centers and the like (mixed with a few park-n-rides wherever rail lines cross major highways, and only at those places -- if it's still relevant to have a park-n-ride anyway).

Access to stations for people beyond the walkshed would be mainly via shuttles, bicycles, and whatever Uber-like / 'autonomous' vehicle technology develops.

We know that it's impossible for everyone to drive into Boston. It doesn't matter how much you squeeze using computer-guided vehicle technology. There's just not enough space for that many personal vehicles to show up all at once here. But you don't need to drive your computer-guided vehicle into the center of the city when there's a 100+ mph high-capacity train available nearby, running every 10 minutes. It'll get you there faster.

Of course this all presumes that we can figure out how to build things cost-effectively and operate them properly.

So yeah, pipe dream.

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I'm just saying we all have to be careful about playing armchair economist. There is a natural temptation to use the tool available to measure the things that tool measures. There is always more to the story and in public policy there is always a subjective value judgement made by the deciders. If everything could truly be boiled down to hard numbers we would just let Watson the Computer run the city/state/country/world.

Careful, sure, but you when you have the tools available to make a good model you need to go ahead and try. Everything can be quantified in some way or another.

I don't think people would be so gun shy about these multi-billion dollar potential boondoggles if the math really checked and could be checked. But so far our experience the last 20 to 40 years has been that projects are low balled by about 1/3 of their eventual real costs and then the economic benefits aren't really measured. So maybe people just won't believe the numbers because they have been used to obfuscate for so long, but if we don't get back to trying to get to real models then nobody will make big investments.

And all the arguments about demand management also apply to mass transit. If you don't build it, they don't come. You are already talking about a highly developed part of the city where adding a N-S link probably won't attract new development. This isn't like building a new station on the line where you have to justify with ridership numbers and capital costs of the station alone.

We are talking about diffuse system wide effects with improvements to travel times between specific destinations and enabling other improvements and efficiencies. That's why I say quantify it. Run some numbers, publish the results. Heck if it is a software model or even spreadsheet model then publish the source code so it can be verified. So far I've seen a few compelling bullet points and a lot of things which are nice to haves.

If the numbers add up, then great let's build a tunnel.