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

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Then they should look into building a simple monorail system, instead of putting it in the ground. It would be easier to build with far less headaches.

Let it run between North Station & South Station, with no stops in between, to save on travel time. Much like the tram system the operates & runs around Chicago's O'Hare Airport.

If you just want to move people between North and South Station there are already alternatives. That is just a minor part of the N-S link benefits.

 

[West]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I have frequently been seriously negatively impressed by Shirley Leung's assertions on transit, and I had similar reactions to most of what she had to say on the Olympics bid, back when that was ongoing.

But when she puts the two topics together, like this:

Pollack did sign off on a $2 million feasibility study to analyze everything from cost to how many riders would benefit.

“People have raised legitimate points, and we will explore them,” she said. “We don’t know the answers. We are doing the study to get the answers.”

This sounds a little familiar, a bit like our failed Summer Olympics bid. A study to show what the Baker administration hopes to find.

This is like a giant black hole of Non-Journalistic Stupidity, sucking all intelligent thought out of Eastern Massachusetts, sending it through a worm hole, to be shat out at the far end of whatever corner of the universe is ruled by ignorance.

Can we please have a better local media?

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I have frequently been seriously negatively impressed by Shirley Leung's assertions on transit, and I had similar reactions to most of what she had to say on the Olympics bid, back when that was ongoing.

But when she puts the two topics together, like this:



This is like a giant black hole of Non-Journalistic Stupidity, sucking all intelligent thought out of Eastern Massachusetts, sending it through a worm hole, to be shat out at the far end of whatever corner of the universe is ruled by ignorance.

Can we please have a better local media?

No we can't apparently. It was a clearly partisan assertion. And the article was clearly intended to puff up Seth's resume ahead of a run for Governor. That pretty much kills N-S link to turn it into a partisan issue.

 

[ErnieAdams]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Shirley is like the Shaughnessy of the business section over there -- total hack who drives you nuts when you read her. Of course that's exactly what her bosses want, eternally confused as they are about the difference between being relevant and being vital. And yeah, you're absolutely right, tangent, this whole spectacle is a fly in the ointment when all of the buzz around the project in the past year has been so conspicuously bipartisan. What the hell does the Globe gain from trying to turn the issue into a turf war? They are just the worst sometimes (Shirley is the worst all times).

 

[CantabAmager]

Re: North-South Rail Link

So, let's put something together? I've met one of the longer-involved members of the North-South Rail Link advocacy group, we all know SciGuy et al is out there beating the drum with TransitMatters which seems to have struck a chord with Aloisi. I'm more than sure that there's enough fuel in the ArchBoston braintrust to, at the very least, put a simple template together of "here's what NSRL is, here's what it offers, here's the tangible user-benefit, here's the regional situation, here's how NSRL fits into the regional situation". Doesn't have to be super-precise, doesn't have to have 110% spec'd out technical proposals. The NSRL group has already done much of this and we've been in here picking holes through it - why not come back with something more air-tight? I'm sure they'd be somewhat open to it.

I'm with (I'm assuming) most of you: transit issues - fuck, all infra issues - are lightly reported with questionable accuracy (don't think it's malice, just ignorance or general apathy). It drives me fucking mad that the Globe refers to the "MBTA subsidy" with zero interest apparently in doing 10 minutes worth of extra research (less actually, I've done it before, it's painfully simple) that'd give them a mode by mode breakdown, something that'd add oceans of context to their points.

That's what we'll get though if everyone yields the space to people like Shirley Leung and slinks off to AB to vent.

EDIT: fwiw, Nicole Dungca, the Globe's normal transportation correspondent, is pretty good - not always the most in depth, but she did a good job breaking down the CM/GC GLX procurement fiasco.

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

So, let's put something together? I've met one of the longer-involved members of the North-South Rail Link advocacy group, we all know SciGuy et al is out there beating the drum with TransitMatters which seems to have struck a chord with Aloisi. I'm more than sure that there's enough fuel in the ArchBoston braintrust to, at the very least, put a simple template together of "here's what NSRL is, here's what it offers, here's the tangible user-benefit, here's the regional situation, here's how NSRL fits into the regional situation". Doesn't have to be super-precise, doesn't have to have 110% spec'd out technical proposals. The NSRL group has already done much of this and we've been in here picking holes through it - why not come back with something more air-tight? I'm sure they'd be somewhat open to it.

I'm with (I'm assuming) most of you: transit issues - fuck, all infra issues - are lightly reported with questionable accuracy (don't think it's malice, just ignorance or general apathy). It drives me fucking mad that the Globe refers to the "MBTA subsidy" with zero interest apparently in doing 10 minutes worth of extra research (less actually, I've done it before, it's painfully simple) that'd give them a mode by mode breakdown, something that'd add oceans of context to their points.

That's what we'll get though if everyone yields the space to people like Shirley Leung and slinks off to AB to vent.

EDIT: fwiw, Nicole Dungca, the Globe's normal transportation correspondent, is pretty good - not always the most in depth, but she did a good job breaking down the CM/GC GLX procurement fiasco.

Agreed, but to be meaningful there should't be just a bucket list of benefits, but some dollar estimates along with those economic/transportation benefits. As in N number of people per year will save X minutes each which will save Y number of dollars.

And I think the MBTA is probably in a better position to do the numbers. But certainly some rough ball park estimates can be done with some commonly accepted numbers for what people's time is worth.

 

[Arlington]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I think I see pretty clearly the difference between Romney's overprice-then-kill approach to transit (both NSRL and Red-Blue) and Baker-Pollack's GLX slash-but-keep-alive (or even Deval's hide-the-out-of-control-contacting, throw a party, and sneak away)

Until somebody comes up with a technique that's as big a breakthrough as the Accelerated Bridge Repair program, success looks a lot more like Pollack's $2m study--even if it is TBMs and Pension Funds, it's gonna start with a study, and if it's going to get statewide and bipartisan supprt we have to at least pretend that Baker and Moulton are on the same side.

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I think I see pretty clearly the difference between Romney's overprice-then-kill approach to transit (both NSRL and Red-Blue) and Baker-Pollack's GLX slash-but-keep-alive (or even Deval's hide-the-out-of-control-contacting, throw a party, and sneak away)

Until somebody comes up with a technique that's as big a breakthrough as the Accelerated Bridge Repair program, success looks a lot more like Pollack's $2m study--even if it is TBMs and Pension Funds, it's gonna start with a study, and if it's going to get statewide and bipartisan supprt we have to at least pretend that Baker and Moulton are on the same side.

Arlington -- remember what mode of transportation Charlie said was influential with GE

hint it has wings associated with its moving through the air

There really is no serious interest outside of the Dukakoids in pursuing this giant boondoggle

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Arlington -- remember what mode of transportation Charlie said was influential with GE

hint it has wings associated with its moving through the air

There really is no serious interest outside of the Dukakoids in pursuing this giant boondoggle

Bill Weld is a dirty, dirty Dukakoid. So are 19 Republicans in the Legislature, including the House Minority Leader.

Dukakoids! Dukakoids everywhere you look! Who will save us from all the Dukakoids who want this built, Professor?

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I don't usually suggest making the project bigger to push it through... but to me a major benefit of N-S would be effectively freeing up Grand Junction for light rail all the way over to a new West Station. Effectively completing an important segment of the Urban Ring as light rail.

Besides the bridgework over the Charles that segment seems like it would be relatively cheap to do compared to the N-S tunnel, but just need to get N-S done first so you can use the ROW. All of which has been discussed here before.

So what I wonder if N-S becomes more justifiable in terms of cost/benefit analysis if you link the project to enabling light rail on Grand Junction and the economic growth benefits of the development around West Station. Say $3.5 Billion for both that Urban Ring segment and N-S versus $3 Billion for just N-S. Seems like it would add up to a clearer return on investment than just N-S alone and easier than trying to quantify the sytemic/network improvements that would result from N-S.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I don't usually suggest making the project bigger to push it through... but to me a major benefit of N-S would be effectively freeing up Grand Junction for light rail all the way over to a new West Station. Effectively completing an important segment of the Urban Ring as light rail.

Besides the bridgework over the Charles that segment seems like it would be relatively cheap to do compared to the N-S tunnel, but just need to get N-S done first so you can use the ROW. All of which has been discussed here before.

So what I wonder if N-S becomes more justifiable in terms of cost/benefit analysis if you link the project to enabling light rail on Grand Junction and the economic growth benefits of the development around West Station. Say $3.5 Billion for both that Urban Ring segment and N-S versus $3 Billion for just N-S. Seems like it would add up to a clearer return on investment than just N-S alone and easier than trying to quantify the sytemic/network improvements that would result from N-S.

Except, converting the Grand Junction over to Urban Ring LRT or BRT isn't contingent on building NSRL. That's a myth that can't be debunked thoroughly enough.

The only prerequisite for taking the Grand Junction is increasing southside commuter rail's equipment and maintenance independence from the northside such that equipment swaps (via the Worcester Line + Worcester-Ayer + Fitchburg Line routing) only need to happen 1-2 times per week instead of 1-2 times per day. That's achieved by buying more revenue equipment so both halves have their own reserves, buying more work equipment so south isn't wholly dependent on north, paying for more Downeaster trainsets and establishing a northside Amtrak crew base to reduce their equipment/crew shuttles, and building a full-service southside maintenance facility that can handle 100% of the day-to-day maintenance and inspections (Boston Engine Terminal can still be load-bearing systemwide for heavy repair and special projects, but only if it reduces those swaps to weekly vs. daily). And then the Worcester-Ayer freight branch would need enough repair so the swaps can move at 40 MPH instead of 15-25 MPH.

The freight on the Grand Junction is expendable. CSX already has trackage rights on the Worcester-Ayer branch, so MassDOT can easily hash out agreements between them and Pan Am and square the cost differences to send CSX's Everett down the Fitchburg Line out of Ayer instead of Worcester Line + GJ out of Framingham.


All of this pretty much needs to be done anyway as the system grows. And certainly all that equipment and facility growth is going to be a prerequisite for NSRL regardless. Likewise, the freight branch out in Worcester County is critical enough to both Pan Am and CSX that it needs its generally deplorable SGR addressed so it can generate the carriers better revenue. So consider all of these prerequisites "eat your peas" necessities that happen in any universe: NSRL, no NSRL, Urban Ring, no Urban Ring. They're entirely de-coupled.


Now...for rapid transit projects NSRL definitely makes Red-Blue and the Seaport-Back Bay connector eight-alarm necessities. And probably BLX-Lynn too since there'll be major need for a Porter/Malden Ctr./Quincy Ctr.-esque transfer relief valve for the North Shore (esp. with Lynn being the North Shore's bus terminal). Those are critical needs. We aren't gonna die on sardine-packed platforms if UR Phase II isn't in-place on Day 1. After all, the T never finished implementing the Crosstown express bus system--an ops-only creation. So we aren't even scratching the surface on all the meaningful Phase I bus improvements that were supposed to enhance radial mobility.

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

MIKE D -- Call your office and bring the Brain Defibrilator -- if this is not a Crazy Transit Pitch then what is?

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Except, converting the Grand Junction over to Urban Ring LRT or BRT isn't contingent on building NSRL. That's a myth that can't be debunked thoroughly enough.

The only prerequisite for taking the Grand Junction is increasing southside commuter rail's equipment and maintenance independence from the northside such that equipment swaps (via the Worcester Line + Worcester-Ayer + Fitchburg Line routing) only need to happen 1-2 times per week instead of 1-2 times per day. That's achieved by buying more revenue equipment so both halves have their own reserves, buying more work equipment so south isn't wholly dependent on north, paying for more Downeaster trainsets and establishing a northside Amtrak crew base to reduce their equipment/crew shuttles, and building a full-service southside maintenance facility that can handle 100% of the day-to-day maintenance and inspections (Boston Engine Terminal can still be load-bearing systemwide for heavy repair and special projects, but only if it reduces those swaps to weekly vs. daily). And then the Worcester-Ayer freight branch would need enough repair so the swaps can move at 40 MPH instead of 15-25 MPH.

The freight on the Grand Junction is expendable. CSX already has trackage rights on the Worcester-Ayer branch, so MassDOT can easily hash out agreements between them and Pan Am and square the cost differences to send CSX's Everett down the Fitchburg Line out of Ayer instead of Worcester Line + GJ out of Framingham.


All of this pretty much needs to be done anyway as the system grows. And certainly all that equipment and facility growth is going to be a prerequisite for NSRL regardless. Likewise, the freight branch out in Worcester County is critical enough to both Pan Am and CSX that it needs its generally deplorable SGR addressed so it can generate the carriers better revenue. So consider all of these prerequisites "eat your peas" necessities that happen in any universe: NSRL, no NSRL, Urban Ring, no Urban Ring. They're entirely de-coupled.


Now...for rapid transit projects NSRL definitely makes Red-Blue and the Seaport-Back Bay connector eight-alarm necessities. And probably BLX-Lynn too since there'll be major need for a Porter/Malden Ctr./Quincy Ctr.-esque transfer relief valve for the North Shore (esp. with Lynn being the North Shore's bus terminal). Those are critical needs. We aren't gonna die on sardine-packed platforms if UR Phase II isn't in-place on Day 1. After all, the T never finished implementing the Crosstown express bus system--an ops-only creation. So we aren't even scratching the surface on all the meaningful Phase I bus improvements that were supposed to enhance radial mobility.

Not really a myth, what you describe is an alternative with quite a bit of cost, work and coordination among stakeholders. What is the cost of all that you describe? Any ballpark? And after all that will the MBTA really accept an outcome where they have to swing their commuter rail trains out to Worcester to move them between North of the Charles to South of the Charles?

I'd say at least N-S has some momentum to be put back on a project list after a cost study.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Not really a myth, what you describe is an alternative with quite a bit of cost, work and coordination among stakeholders. What is the cost of all that you describe? Any ballpark? And after all that will the MBTA really accept an outcome where they have to swing their commuter rail trains out to Worcester to move them between North of the Charles to South of the Charles?

I'd say at least N-S has some momentum to be put back on a project list after a cost study.

No, because the extra equipment and southside maintenance facility are non-optional. Boston Engine Terminal is over-capacity, so for simply keeping up with incremental growth they don't have a choice. They need more equipment so they're no longer skating on such thin reserves and having to swap back and forth to balance the daily revenue pools. They need a full-service maint facility down south so BET is less clogged by long lines of southside equipment waiting its turn for a shop inspection; it's crowding out all the space for laying over revenue trainsets and Downeasters. They need more work equipment and places to store it because they have too little of it to spread all around such a large system, fast-disappearing storage space because of all that GLX is gobbling up, and MassDOT's buying up of so many new out-of-district lines increasing the lend-lease demands on that work equipment pool for use in Western MA, the Cape, and the South Coast freight lines. They have a dollars-and-sense need to keep a lid on how many trips they have to make on the Grand Junction each day to maintain this precarious balance. What's now 2 trips per day can easily spiral to 3, 4, 5 if BET simply runs totally out of room for storing southside cars in the shop line. And that's just pure empty expense.

It's not a dependency on any project. These needs are driven by general-purpose growth, and they need to be addressed. It's not cheap. You're probably talking a couple hundred mil to fully fortify both sides of the system with equipment independence. But you have no choice but to do that if everything right down to the daily schedule stays stet. It's only a couple of years before every Worcester and Providence rush hour train swells to the point where 8 cars are mandatory for the entire duration of the peak shift...not just on the singular 5:00pm sardine can train like today. Or Franklins and Middleboros needing six-packs all the time. Or even Needham and Stoughton needing more than 5 cars on their most packed runs. That extra equipment has to come from somewhere, and it's not going to be from the north if there's no space to store and service the fleet increases.

That pinch is starting to be felt now, and becomes a big problem in as little as 5 years. Not 10-20. So these prerequisites for weaning commuter rail and Amtrak off the Grand Junction have to start happening to substantial degree soon. With all the "eat your peas" money spent long before an up/down decision is ever made on the Urban Ring or NSRL. Because the system can't survive without it. Likewise, the upgrades to the freight line are extracurricular that eventually has to be done purely for freight reasons. That will likewise be done--with non-MBTA money for whatever matching public contribution is required--long before there's any decisions to make. And for these reasons, it's completely irrelevant to the conversation on either of those megaprojects and shouldn't in any way be lumped in. Those expenditures are squarely related to the immediate sustainability of the current rail network, not the reimagined one.

Thus, the fact that it keeps being repeated "Thou MUST build the N-S Link before the Urban Ring is even possible!" here and elsewhere is indeed a myth. Myth, myth, myth. It's not true at all.

 

[tangent]

Re: North-South Rail Link

That's fair. Seems like a reasonable alternative. Although I think that undermines the value of N-S quite a bit in my mind. At least relatively so.

 

[oyhimylm]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I was looking through some old transit maps online and found a proposal for a NSRL from 1909.

It's actually pretty similar to current proposals. It's routed very close to the present Central Artery, includes a central station ("Marketplace Station") in the proximity of Aquarium, Haymarket, and State stations.

The most major difference is the inclusion of another harbor tunnel, for faster access to Lynn and points north, using the railroad that was later used for the Blue Line. The East Boston tunnel portaled at Maverick and was used for streetcars at the time, so it was not a conflict.

It's amazing that this has been proposed over and over for 100 years without any serious progress in actually getting it done.

Here's the map:

 

[Charlie_mta]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I was looking through some old transit maps online and found a proposal for a NSRL from 1909.

Wow, that's the first I've seen that one. They totally should have built it. Not the spur tunnel to East Boston, because that corridor was/is well served by what is now the Blue Line tunnel to Maverick Square, but definitely the mainline 4 track tunnel through Boston. Pure genius that was never realized.

 

[CSTH]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Fascinating.

Bear in mind that like all waterfront improvements up to and including the artery, this was primarily a freight play - note the attention paid to various piers.

Wonder what the grade would have been on that tunnel alignment.

What's amazing is that it's been proposed for 100 years, and we managed to spend a decade building a hole downtown 6x bigger than what would be needed for a rail connection - and didn't build the rail connection.

 

[whighlander]

Re: North-South Rail Link

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I was looking through some old transit maps online and found a proposal for a NSRL from 1909.

It's actually pretty similar to current proposals. It's routed very close to the present Central Artery, includes a central station ("Marketplace Station") in the proximity of Aquarium, Haymarket, and State stations.

Oyhimylm -- Truly an amazing "Find" -- what is most amazing is how the "Working Port" -- or at least the Cargo Port just vanished from the original Boston Peninsula because the ships got too big to fit to the old Colonial Era Piers

Not only did you have the proposed tunnel -- but you also had a fully functional "Grand Junction-style" freight connector railroad right along Atlantic Avenue and Commercial Street with an almost parallel elevated passenger Atlantic Avenue "El"

Much of that was "Washed-away" by the Great Molasses Flood of 1919 and was never rebuilt

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: North-South Rail Link

Oyhimylm -- Truly an amazing "Find" -- what is most amazing is how the "Working Port" -- or at least the Cargo Port just vanished from the original Boston Peninsula because the ships got too big to fit to the old Colonial Era Piers

Not only did you have the proposed tunnel -- but you also had a fully functional "Grand Junction-style" freight connector railroad right along Atlantic Avenue and Commercial Street with an almost parallel elevated passenger Atlantic Avenue "El"

Much of that was "Washed-away" by the Great Molasses Flood of 1919 and was never rebuilt

Well, the Atlantic Avenue El was damaged by the Great Molasses Flood (section north of Battery Street), but remained in service until 1938 as shuttle service between South to North Station. Connecting section from South Station to the Washington Street El in the South End via Beech and Harrison was closed in 1928 after a derailment on the tight curves. The El was torn down for scrap steel in 1942.