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

Re: North-South Rail Link

...and if you squint you can see Brophy Park on Jeffries Point in Eastie
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

If you think NSRL should be "worked on" between now and 2040, please submit this as a comment to the Mass State Rail Plan 2018, which is now taking comments.

Attn: Jennifer Slesinger - State Rail Plan
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4150
Boston, Ma 02116

or

Email: Planning@dot.state.ma.us


Visit the site: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/rail-plan
Read the draft plan: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/01/26/2018PubComm_1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link

tysmith95 said:
And also it's interesting that they only included Boston numbers but half of their dotted map includes locations outside of Boston. I'd say that income inequality is worse if you only look inside of Boston boarders then it would be if you included the inner suburbs. Boston itself includes both the richest (Beacon Hill, Back Bay) and the poorest (Roxbury, Mattapan, etc) parts of the region. It doesn't include places like Malden, Medford, Quincy, Watertown, etc that are mostly middle class.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this, the Brookings data shows that the metro area inequality ratio is 10.5 rather than 17.8 for just the city. And we become ranked 6th instead of first.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Data, excellent job. I've RT'd it and sent the pdf to almost 20 people today, it just makes so much sense.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

I love that transit matters is publicizing this stuff. Most people are totally unaware on the amazing effects that the NSRL could have.

I often hear people say "well I can take the subway from North to South station so what's the point of the NSRL". They don't realize that a double tracked NSRL would literally double the capacity of both North and South Station, unclog the subway lines, and allow these rapid transit like regional rail systems.

I would love to see a ballot question for a project like this. I believe most people in eastern mass want infrastructure improvements.

As far as how to pay for it is harder. Maybe an earmarked additional tax at people making over 500k.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

cadetcarl said:
Data, excellent job. I've RT'd it and sent the pdf to almost 20 people today, it just makes so much sense.
Click to expand...

That's so exciting to hear! Thanks a lot!

tysmith95 said:
I love that transit matters is publicizing this stuff. Most people are totally unaware on the amazing effects that the NSRL could have.

I often hear people say "well I can take the subway from North to South station so what's the point of the NSRL". They don't realize that a double tracked NSRL would literally double the capacity of both North and South Station, unclog the subway lines, and allow these rapid transit like regional rail systems.

I would love to see a ballot question for a project like this. I believe most people in eastern mass want infrastructure improvements.

As far as how to pay for it is harder. Maybe an earmarked additional tax at people making over 500k.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but it's clear that you did not read the report. This is NOT about NSRL. Regional Rail is not dependent on NSRL. Please read my earlier posts in this thread.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Data, thanks for being available to answer these questions. It's great work to get a conversation going, and I'm seeing a lot of discussion on a few different Facebook groups, but I think the Globe article may have created some confusion in at least one discussion I'm in, hopefully you can definitively clear this up. It mentions a $2-3 billion price tag immediately after mentioning Needham Line replacement with OL/GL extensions. People I know are saying that's the cost for the extensions, but when I read the white paper, I thought that was the estimate for achieving the five principles, but not at all related to the cost of Needham replacement. Is that the case?
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

HenryAlan said:
Data, thanks for being available to answer these questions. It's great work to get a conversation going, and I'm seeing a lot of discussion on a few different Facebook groups, but I think the Globe article may have created some confusion in at least one discussion I'm in, hopefully you can definitively clear this up. It mentions a $2-3 billion price tag immediately after mentioning Needham Line replacement with OL/GL extensions. People I know are saying that's the cost for the extensions, but when I read the white paper, I thought that was the estimate for achieving the five principles, but not at all related to the cost of Needham replacement. Is that the case?
Click to expand...

$2-3 billion is electrification, high platforms & track/signal improvements only (the 5 principles). The Needham language never got to a point I was satisfied with (I think we'll modify it), but it is in a chapter prior to the cost breakdown and the "Rolling Out Regional Rail" chapter addresses what the $2-3 billion entails clearly:

We estimate the cost range of systemwide electrification, high platforms to enable level boarding, and strategic capacity improvements at bottlenecks to be about $2 to 3 billion.
Click to expand...

To be frank, the Globe's coverage of this (and numerous other transportation issues) has been frustrating. They consistently miss the forest for the trees.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Would buying bi-level coaches with lower level doors be cheaper since they would allow for accessible boarding without building high level platforms at every station? I believe that's what Go Transit uses in Toronto.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

That ignores the sunk cost present in all the stations that are already high level that wouldn't be compatible with low level boarding trains and it also ignores that in the Northeast Amtrak has committed to high level platforms so any lines that see Amtrak trains would need high levels still. It just doesn't make sense in this context even if in some other places it might be a good decision.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

sm89 said:
Would buying bi-level coaches with lower level doors be cheaper since they would allow for accessible boarding without building high level platforms at every station? I believe that's what Go Transit uses in Toronto.
Click to expand...

No and we are currently working on a supplement to prove it.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

sm89 said:
What are some of the quick facts?
Click to expand...

My personal experience - Salem boards quicker than Beverly Depot with more people due to elevated platform.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

adamh8297 said:
My personal experience - Salem boards quicker than Beverly Depot with more people due to elevated platform.
Click to expand...

We don't have any examples of this right now. Picture the bi-level coaches but instead of the doors being on the ends, they're in the middle on the lower level. You wouldn't need to build high level platforms and could still have the benefits of level entry. I wanted to know what the downfalls of that are.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

You can't use those at all of the high platform stations that already exist and it would be a huge cost at this point to tear them all out.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

This is awesome stuff and hope I live to see it implemented! Bravo!
I am curious about some new (old) extensions I saw (Woburn, Danvers, etc) - as far as I know, the Woburn ROW is mostly gone though I could be wrong.

Disclaimer: I worked with Transitmatters a couple years ago on their podcast AND I never read the Globe article, only the Transitmatters presentation so I'm a bit bias :)
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

sm89 said:
We don't have any examples of this right now. Picture the bi-level coaches but instead of the doors being on the ends, they're in the middle on the lower level. You wouldn't need to build high level platforms and could still have the benefits of level entry. I wanted to know what the downfalls of that are.
Click to expand...

citylover94 said:
You can't use those at all of the high platform stations that already exist and it would be a huge cost at this point to tear them all out.
Click to expand...


This - and they wouldn't be able to tear it out at any station that Amtrak services, too, as they are all high levels.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Here's something for Transitmatters to think about...it argues pretty strongly for more all-door boarding:

May 2020 is when AFC 2.0 turns on, May 2021 is when old fare system gets shut off. AFC 2.0 will be all about tapping your fare media as you board...and on commuter rail, as you exit:
Commuter rail passengers would be required to tap both entering and exiting trains to measure distance traveled and assign fares accordingly, Block-Schachter explained.
Click to expand...
http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/11/20/charliecards-may-be-on-their-way-out
https://mbta.com/projects/automated-fare-collection-20-afc2

Tap-as-you-board-inbound and tap-as-you-alight outbound both strongly argue for all-doors-open , lest AFC 2.0 actually lengthen dwells lest people back up waiting to tap

So how will this change how trains turn at SS/NS? Will it accidently trigger the need for additional faregate space or slower boarding/alighting as people tap their media?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top