DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Re: North-South Rail Link
Did anyone go to the meeting yesterday? Any good info?
Did anyone go to the meeting yesterday? Any good info?
Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: North-South Rail Link
Yes, Woburn Proper is dumpy, but I don't see that being much different from where they plopped Lyon's TGV station (out on the 3rd ring road).
The market is out there, arguably about 1/4 of all Metro demand--Tech along 9 & 93 and money managers' homes at the eastern end of 128 and probably a higher % of demand that has trouble getting to Logan.
Yes, Woburn Proper is dumpy, but I don't see that being much different from where they plopped Lyon's TGV station (out on the 3rd ring road).
The market is out there, arguably about 1/4 of all Metro demand--Tech along 9 & 93 and money managers' homes at the eastern end of 128 and probably a higher % of demand that has trouble getting to Logan.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Re: North-South Rail Link
That's not the point. Amtrak has strong cost-control rationale for not splitting its bases. The NH/ME Regional run-thru slots tap that demand same way the VA Regionals do, but their profit margins on the Acela, main Regional schedules, and Inlands max out shackled to Southampton.
Think...why haven't there been any plans to terminate all Regionals/Acelas at the south end of the D.C. Beltway instead of downtown when that's a much bigger metro area? Same base-splitting reason they won't do it at Anderson.
That's not the point. Amtrak has strong cost-control rationale for not splitting its bases. The NH/ME Regional run-thru slots tap that demand same way the VA Regionals do, but their profit margins on the Acela, main Regional schedules, and Inlands max out shackled to Southampton.
Think...why haven't there been any plans to terminate all Regionals/Acelas at the south end of the D.C. Beltway instead of downtown when that's a much bigger metro area? Same base-splitting reason they won't do it at Anderson.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Re: North-South Rail Link
Listening to the radio this morning I was a bit annoyed that the take-away message is that N-S Rail Link would connect North and South Stations and they are a mile apart so why not... I mean the new underground platforms would likely be pretty far from North and South Stations.
The benefits of linking the North and South sides of the rail system include reducing system-wide travel times, increasing capacity and improving regional transportation options by connecting people from the North and South to job and housing opportunities on the other side of downtown.
Listening to the radio this morning I was a bit annoyed that the take-away message is that N-S Rail Link would connect North and South Stations and they are a mile apart so why not... I mean the new underground platforms would likely be pretty far from North and South Stations.
The benefits of linking the North and South sides of the rail system include reducing system-wide travel times, increasing capacity and improving regional transportation options by connecting people from the North and South to job and housing opportunities on the other side of downtown.
Re: North-South Rail Link
^ Yeah i'm increasingly convinced that this project will only really get moving if and only if it gets repackaged as part of a "21st Century rail" megaproject - its just too hard to communicate the system-wide benefits (and required investments) under the NSRL headline.
^ Yeah i'm increasingly convinced that this project will only really get moving if and only if it gets repackaged as part of a "21st Century rail" megaproject - its just too hard to communicate the system-wide benefits (and required investments) under the NSRL headline.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: North-South Rail Link
We also see, in the success at first Lynchburg and then Roanoke, and the extensions of most other former WAS-terminating trains to terminate at Richmond (limited by Long Bridge, not market demand) that there's real appetites for taking the NER "one stop farther"
In DC's case, a better reason why the NEC has not been extended south "one more stop" can't be primarily market demand but rather that the Long Bridge & RF&P are:
1) Owned by CSX
2) Slot-restricted and delay inducing
3) VA has no appetite for electrification (unlike Mass if we do the NSRL)
4) And whatever other reasons that have kept MARC & VRE from Through-running on each others' CSX, Diesel-hauled territories.
If they work out VRE-MARC North-South through-running, and VA pays for Electrification and a commuter yard at the Springfield Interchange (and NSRL proposes to do analogous/mirror-image things in Woburn in a way that's not available in DC) then I would expect Amtrak to try to find a way to "freeload" to get to Acela to that southern quadrant of the DC area (Franconia-Springfield WMATA/VRE)
But in Virginia, that CSX owns the ROW makes it much harder to imagine, despite the proven demand, than picturing an Acela in Woburn.
That Amtrak Virginia has NER-like operating profits means that it has great market demand despite the long northbound scheduled hold for its NEC-slots at WAS, and generous padding in both directions between Alexandria and Union Station.
We also see, in the success at first Lynchburg and then Roanoke, and the extensions of most other former WAS-terminating trains to terminate at Richmond (limited by Long Bridge, not market demand) that there's real appetites for taking the NER "one stop farther"
In DC's case, a better reason why the NEC has not been extended south "one more stop" can't be primarily market demand but rather that the Long Bridge & RF&P are:
1) Owned by CSX
2) Slot-restricted and delay inducing
3) VA has no appetite for electrification (unlike Mass if we do the NSRL)
4) And whatever other reasons that have kept MARC & VRE from Through-running on each others' CSX, Diesel-hauled territories.
If they work out VRE-MARC North-South through-running, and VA pays for Electrification and a commuter yard at the Springfield Interchange (and NSRL proposes to do analogous/mirror-image things in Woburn in a way that's not available in DC) then I would expect Amtrak to try to find a way to "freeload" to get to Acela to that southern quadrant of the DC area (Franconia-Springfield WMATA/VRE)
But in Virginia, that CSX owns the ROW makes it much harder to imagine, despite the proven demand, than picturing an Acela in Woburn.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Re: North-South Rail Link
I didn't say "why haven't they done this?". I said "why haven't they proposed doing this"...speculative or otherwise. The CSX ownership is as irrelevant as a vaporware NSRL. They haven't put forth any stated desire that this is a high-value proposition for them and their first-class market.
It's not even talk. D.C. Union to South Station is resolutely the focus for the NEC FUTURE study...and if there was anywhere a pivot to suburban terminals would be stated for their premium services, it's that study. The question is not why YOU see a vast market for run-thru, but why Amtrak-the-corporation does NOT. If there's no critical mass driving a movement for it--and fixing the traffic restrictions--in a much larger market like D.C., it is vanishingly unlikely that they see anything different in the north 128 'burbs. NH+ME aren't even in VA's universe in markets served, and have stagnant instead of increasing populations. We're lucky that Concord and Portland will be served with decent-ish one-seat schedules at all in an NSRL universe.
MARC+VRE run-thru...a real advocacy...is also different from Amtrak wanting to change from a CBD terminal to a Beltway terminal. Uniting "north"/"south" CR with run-thru achieves similar goals for similar demand there as here. But the fact that Amtrak does NOT outwardly desire similar goals for its premier services means they see a distinction between a commuter rail audience spanning the Beltway and an intercity audience. That analogy fits Anderson too. Any population demographics have to be filtered by CR vs. intercity audiences and what Amtrak sees as a CBD, not suburban/beltway, dividing line for its premium services.
Like it or not, you're going to have to advocate for this in terms of Amtrak's business focus as it is...not where you think it should be. Right now they are not pusuing suburban termini for first-class services at any level of the organization or in any planning docs going out 20+ years. They've already seen the demographics and don't think that's where the lion's share of their market is. You can disagree with their conclusion, but don't wishfully ascribe momentum to change that market focus that isn't actually there. They've pretty clearly made up their mind about what does and does not make a max-leverage HSR terminal.
I didn't say "why haven't they done this?". I said "why haven't they proposed doing this"...speculative or otherwise. The CSX ownership is as irrelevant as a vaporware NSRL. They haven't put forth any stated desire that this is a high-value proposition for them and their first-class market.
It's not even talk. D.C. Union to South Station is resolutely the focus for the NEC FUTURE study...and if there was anywhere a pivot to suburban terminals would be stated for their premium services, it's that study. The question is not why YOU see a vast market for run-thru, but why Amtrak-the-corporation does NOT. If there's no critical mass driving a movement for it--and fixing the traffic restrictions--in a much larger market like D.C., it is vanishingly unlikely that they see anything different in the north 128 'burbs. NH+ME aren't even in VA's universe in markets served, and have stagnant instead of increasing populations. We're lucky that Concord and Portland will be served with decent-ish one-seat schedules at all in an NSRL universe.
MARC+VRE run-thru...a real advocacy...is also different from Amtrak wanting to change from a CBD terminal to a Beltway terminal. Uniting "north"/"south" CR with run-thru achieves similar goals for similar demand there as here. But the fact that Amtrak does NOT outwardly desire similar goals for its premier services means they see a distinction between a commuter rail audience spanning the Beltway and an intercity audience. That analogy fits Anderson too. Any population demographics have to be filtered by CR vs. intercity audiences and what Amtrak sees as a CBD, not suburban/beltway, dividing line for its premium services.
Like it or not, you're going to have to advocate for this in terms of Amtrak's business focus as it is...not where you think it should be. Right now they are not pusuing suburban termini for first-class services at any level of the organization or in any planning docs going out 20+ years. They've already seen the demographics and don't think that's where the lion's share of their market is. You can disagree with their conclusion, but don't wishfully ascribe momentum to change that market focus that isn't actually there. They've pretty clearly made up their mind about what does and does not make a max-leverage HSR terminal.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Re: North-South Rail Link
Next expansion target for the DE past Brunswick is probably going to be Augusta. Then Waterville, then final line drawn at Bangor. VA Regionals-style extended service from WSH/NYC past Boston has a pretty clear dividing line at Portland. So you'll see the services start to diverge and stake their own territory...extended Corridor service ending at Portland, New England intercity running Boston-Augusta/Bangor.
Note also that this distinction could emerge BEFORE the NSRL, as an Inland Route train routed over the Grand Junction to North Station then reversing after short layover would replicate the old New York-Portland "State of Maine" train...and be nicely low-cost to run as a one-a-day because of the way it splices together bog-standard Inland and DE slots with traditional Inland + DE audiences making up most of the farebox recovery (i.e. can sustain self on its halves even if the NY-POR thru audience is tiny at first). NNEPRA is already thinking of this if the Inland Route gets greenlit, so it may come sooner than later. Only schedule distinction from its regular halves might be a couple skipped lesser stops on each leg to fit total NY-POR travel times into a nice round number.
Next expansion target for the DE past Brunswick is probably going to be Augusta. Then Waterville, then final line drawn at Bangor. VA Regionals-style extended service from WSH/NYC past Boston has a pretty clear dividing line at Portland. So you'll see the services start to diverge and stake their own territory...extended Corridor service ending at Portland, New England intercity running Boston-Augusta/Bangor.
Note also that this distinction could emerge BEFORE the NSRL, as an Inland Route train routed over the Grand Junction to North Station then reversing after short layover would replicate the old New York-Portland "State of Maine" train...and be nicely low-cost to run as a one-a-day because of the way it splices together bog-standard Inland and DE slots with traditional Inland + DE audiences making up most of the farebox recovery (i.e. can sustain self on its halves even if the NY-POR thru audience is tiny at first). NNEPRA is already thinking of this if the Inland Route gets greenlit, so it may come sooner than later. Only schedule distinction from its regular halves might be a couple skipped lesser stops on each leg to fit total NY-POR travel times into a nice round number.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Re: North-South Rail Link
Agree completely. This advocacy is going absolutely nowhere with the prevailing talking points. And Duke/Weld are sucking all the oxygen out of the room siphoning away the political support to their organization when they are resolutely unwilling/unable to point out what the thing does. It's all "last-mile" and "everywhere-to-everywhere" and "stub-end sucks". That wonkery means absolutely nothing to taxpaying commuters who want transit to improve their quality of life with frequencies, options, and job access. They couldn't grasp those talking points 15 years ago when the first studies were done, and they surely can't grasp it now. It's a born loser of a mission statement, but the power behind this advocacy is so set in their ways that this is all you're ever going to get until these guys exit stage left. It baffles me that these are the same people who were so clearly able to articulate and sell the Big Dig's mission statement convincingly on the public (even AFTER it became a boondoggle), but I guess they truly have been out of the game too long to know how to give a concise stump speech.
The easy-to-grasp mission statement starts with RER advocacy, provides a clear concept of what that's going to do northside and southside...then segues into "Do this and now you NEED the Link." Because it'll be readily apparent (1) what RER-ification does to the terminal districts' capacity ceiling, and (2) when frequencies on each side are that much better how much the north-south gap sticks out like a sore thumb. Thoroughly a frequency-rooted argument, and thoroughly a 'heat map'-following argument re: potential line pairings on where the trans-system job & housing markets are going to be after you rev up the frequencies (instead of just throwing "everywhere to everywhere" darts around like anyone gives a crap about one-seat between Greenbush and Wachusett park-and-ride lots in 2018).
Easy to grasp. Keeps its mission statement taut because it all starts with the thing commuters most care about--frequencies--and follows that thread to its inevitable end.
The fact that the major players can't/won't get in line with this means the whole advocacy really needs to get sent home for retooling, lest they be allowed to prove Baker right by continuing to be totally mealy-mouthed about it. Best thing for TransitMatters and likeminded on-point supporters to do is just finish rebutting the state's BS study, reaffirm that there is political price to pay for not giving NSRL a serious look...then go quiet on the issue for a bit and pivot to the real prize and the real project prerequisite: Regional Rail. That has some momentum behind it and some well-articulated talking points that are tickling public imagination. Get some concrete policy wins there: initial electrification commitments, EMU's, ops reforms, schedule expansion. Work the levers on SSX to peel it away from this stupid zero-sum game competition with NSRL and all the real estate empire-building that's inducing the cost blowouts. The bare track work isn't expensive and is going to be needed anyway in an "upstairs/downstairs" universe because of how escalating Amtrak traffic exploits the assymetry in SS's switch layout.
Then, when there's a few victories in-pocket and momentum is going towards making RER a reality...reintroduce NSRL advocacy with a "We did this...now you're going to NEED that." I don't care if it takes another 10 years in the wilderness, so long as they get the message right and can explain it in plain-English benefits to commuters. It would be better to step back and get it right--with RER-coattails evidence pointing strongly in their favor--then to continue killing it softly with irrelevant wonkspeak.
Agree completely. This advocacy is going absolutely nowhere with the prevailing talking points. And Duke/Weld are sucking all the oxygen out of the room siphoning away the political support to their organization when they are resolutely unwilling/unable to point out what the thing does. It's all "last-mile" and "everywhere-to-everywhere" and "stub-end sucks". That wonkery means absolutely nothing to taxpaying commuters who want transit to improve their quality of life with frequencies, options, and job access. They couldn't grasp those talking points 15 years ago when the first studies were done, and they surely can't grasp it now. It's a born loser of a mission statement, but the power behind this advocacy is so set in their ways that this is all you're ever going to get until these guys exit stage left. It baffles me that these are the same people who were so clearly able to articulate and sell the Big Dig's mission statement convincingly on the public (even AFTER it became a boondoggle), but I guess they truly have been out of the game too long to know how to give a concise stump speech.
The easy-to-grasp mission statement starts with RER advocacy, provides a clear concept of what that's going to do northside and southside...then segues into "Do this and now you NEED the Link." Because it'll be readily apparent (1) what RER-ification does to the terminal districts' capacity ceiling, and (2) when frequencies on each side are that much better how much the north-south gap sticks out like a sore thumb. Thoroughly a frequency-rooted argument, and thoroughly a 'heat map'-following argument re: potential line pairings on where the trans-system job & housing markets are going to be after you rev up the frequencies (instead of just throwing "everywhere to everywhere" darts around like anyone gives a crap about one-seat between Greenbush and Wachusett park-and-ride lots in 2018).
Easy to grasp. Keeps its mission statement taut because it all starts with the thing commuters most care about--frequencies--and follows that thread to its inevitable end.
The fact that the major players can't/won't get in line with this means the whole advocacy really needs to get sent home for retooling, lest they be allowed to prove Baker right by continuing to be totally mealy-mouthed about it. Best thing for TransitMatters and likeminded on-point supporters to do is just finish rebutting the state's BS study, reaffirm that there is political price to pay for not giving NSRL a serious look...then go quiet on the issue for a bit and pivot to the real prize and the real project prerequisite: Regional Rail. That has some momentum behind it and some well-articulated talking points that are tickling public imagination. Get some concrete policy wins there: initial electrification commitments, EMU's, ops reforms, schedule expansion. Work the levers on SSX to peel it away from this stupid zero-sum game competition with NSRL and all the real estate empire-building that's inducing the cost blowouts. The bare track work isn't expensive and is going to be needed anyway in an "upstairs/downstairs" universe because of how escalating Amtrak traffic exploits the assymetry in SS's switch layout.
Then, when there's a few victories in-pocket and momentum is going towards making RER a reality...reintroduce NSRL advocacy with a "We did this...now you're going to NEED that." I don't care if it takes another 10 years in the wilderness, so long as they get the message right and can explain it in plain-English benefits to commuters. It would be better to step back and get it right--with RER-coattails evidence pointing strongly in their favor--then to continue killing it softly with irrelevant wonkspeak.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Re: North-South Rail Link
F-List, you’re the rarest of beasts: a technical wonk who gets what actually matters to people.
Does anyone know if TM or NSRL have a PR or marketing person who could present much of this to the public?
F-List, you’re the rarest of beasts: a technical wonk who gets what actually matters to people.
Does anyone know if TM or NSRL have a PR or marketing person who could present much of this to the public?
Re: North-South Rail Link
Selling nsrl as 'lets build a tunnel to make it more convenient to get from North station to South station by train' is like selling the big dig by saying 'lets build a huge cable stayed bridge over the Charles to make it more convenient to get from Somerville to the North End by car...
Selling nsrl as 'lets build a tunnel to make it more convenient to get from North station to South station by train' is like selling the big dig by saying 'lets build a huge cable stayed bridge over the Charles to make it more convenient to get from Somerville to the North End by car...
Re: North-South Rail Link
The Big Dig was more about removing the central artery from view, not anything else. The TWT was just a throw in to please Weston CEOs to make their lives easier to get to Logan.
The Big Dig was more about removing the central artery from view, not anything else. The TWT was just a throw in to please Weston CEOs to make their lives easier to get to Logan.
Re: North-South Rail Link
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/11/23/u-s-finally-legalizes-modern-european-style-train-cars/
I don't think I've seen any discussion of this new FRA decision? I wonder if anyone thinks this would impact the costs for regional rail/NSRL and by how much.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/11/23/u-s-finally-legalizes-modern-european-style-train-cars/
I don't think I've seen any discussion of this new FRA decision? I wonder if anyone thinks this would impact the costs for regional rail/NSRL and by how much.
Re: North-South Rail Link
Assuming you're being serious with this post, the TWT was a very smart and necessary road infrastructure project to help enhance Logan Airport, which is a massive economic engine for the city, metro area and region. Getting to/from Logan is much easier than it was 20 years ago. If anything the TWT should have been larger. Both tubes should have been built to be wide enough to carry 3 full travel lanes in each direction with full shoulders on both sides. A third tube should have also been built to carry heavy rail, or be dedicated travel lanes for buses - the silver line and Logan Express.
Assuming you're being serious with this post, the TWT was a very smart and necessary road infrastructure project to help enhance Logan Airport, which is a massive economic engine for the city, metro area and region. Getting to/from Logan is much easier than it was 20 years ago. If anything the TWT should have been larger. Both tubes should have been built to be wide enough to carry 3 full travel lanes in each direction with full shoulders on both sides. A third tube should have also been built to carry heavy rail, or be dedicated travel lanes for buses - the silver line and Logan Express.
Re: North-South Rail Link
I don't know the specifics but the Silver Line was supposed to have dedicated lanes through the TWT, but that was cut.
I don't know the specifics but the Silver Line was supposed to have dedicated lanes through the TWT, but that was cut.
Re: North-South Rail Link
I know - and we talk about the disastrous decision to not include a third tube all the time on the here, but I’m wondering how much it would actually cost to add one now? I know it’s unlikely to happen, but just wondering roughly what the cost would be...
I know - and we talk about the disastrous decision to not include a third tube all the time on the here, but I’m wondering how much it would actually cost to add one now? I know it’s unlikely to happen, but just wondering roughly what the cost would be...
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Re: North-South Rail Link
I think more people are starting to realize that it isn't just reducing commute times, but enabling population and job growth without sacrificing quality of life. Boston is hitting the wall and the next 20 to 30% growth is going to reduce quality of life in and around the city if transportation isn't improved.
I think more people are starting to realize that it isn't just reducing commute times, but enabling population and job growth without sacrificing quality of life. Boston is hitting the wall and the next 20 to 30% growth is going to reduce quality of life in and around the city if transportation isn't improved.
Re: North-South Rail Link
Good catch on that, DAVE. I can't imagine how much of our transportation woes are self inflicted. Bureaucracy, etc is slowing human progress.
Good catch on that, DAVE. I can't imagine how much of our transportation woes are self inflicted. Bureaucracy, etc is slowing human progress.