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

ceo said:
Um, I know it's legal in MA now, but dude, you want to lay the hell off that stuff. If you want to permanently gridlock the fuck out of downtown traffic, I can't think of a better way to do that than sending Amtrak and commuter rail trains down the middle of the fucking street. Oh, and forget about any hope of those trains staying on schedule. The Union Freight Railroad only ran late at night, for good reason.
Click to expand...

If we take the proposal seriously for a second, it seems like there might be room for an elevated structure through the Greenway. This has the obvious issues, but it would be possible to do. Proposal. Steps would be:

  1. New surface-level route starting from just about the end of the longest South Station platform curving west and then straight along Atlantic Ave. Rise in elevation until you hit what you need. This probably blocks a good bit of the bus terminal's street entrance, but it should be possible to rework it.
  2. New elevated platforms roughly where all of the trees to the west of the current platforms are, continuing out and over Summer St (blocking a good bit of the South Station facade, but whatever).
  3. Continue the elevated structure straight and onto the Greenway. Should be possible to avoid staying on top of the tunnels but this isn't going to be a high speed trip.
  4. Room for a central station from about High St to Aquarium
  5. Continue north, stick to the northern side and continue across over Beverly St.
  6. S-bend to the left over the on-ramp and then return to ground-level as you continue out and under the Storrow connector. Should be able to tie into a new bridge just north of the drawbridge after going under the connector.

No real room for a North Station equivalent that I can see. You need the space at the north end for the tricky weaving around roads. Might be able to put it on top of Beverly St, but I'm sure the new condo owners there won't be happy. Stations would have to be extremely minimalistic given the room constraints anyway.

Overall I say it's technically possible, but I wouldn't do it. We have the specs for the tunnel all laid out, and that will work fine without putting another eyesore on top of a great park. Operationally the offset tracks at both ends mean any trains going over this are going to foul a lot of other lines, and nothing will ever approach acceptable speeds when crossing switches, fouling them for even longer. You'd be connecting the far western South Station tracks to the far northern North Station tracks, which works out okay for Worcester->Salem service at least.
 
ulrichomega said:
If we take the proposal seriously for a second, it seems like there might be room for an elevated structure through the Greenway. This has the obvious issues, but it would be possible to do. Proposal. Steps would be:

  1. New surface-level route starting from just about the end of the longest South Station platform curving west and then straight along Atlantic Ave. Rise in elevation until you hit what you need. This probably blocks a good bit of the bus terminal's street entrance, but it should be possible to rework it.
  2. New elevated platforms roughly where all of the trees to the west of the current platforms are, continuing out and over Summer St (blocking a good bit of the South Station facade, but whatever).
  3. Continue the elevated structure straight and onto the Greenway. Should be possible to avoid staying on top of the tunnels but this isn't going to be a high speed trip.
  4. Room for a central station from about High St to Aquarium
  5. Continue north, stick to the northern side and continue across over Beverly St.
  6. S-bend to the left over the on-ramp and then return to ground-level as you continue out and under the Storrow connector. Should be able to tie into a new bridge just north of the drawbridge after going under the connector.

No real room for a North Station equivalent that I can see. You need the space at the north end for the tricky weaving around roads. Might be able to put it on top of Beverly St, but I'm sure the new condo owners there won't be happy. Stations would have to be extremely minimalistic given the room constraints anyway.

Overall I say it's technically possible, but I wouldn't do it. We have the specs for the tunnel all laid out, and that will work fine without putting another eyesore on top of a great park. Operationally the offset tracks at both ends mean any trains going over this are going to foul a lot of other lines, and nothing will ever approach acceptable speeds when crossing switches, fouling them for even longer. You'd be connecting the far western South Station tracks to the far northern North Station tracks, which works out okay for Worcester->Salem service at least.
Click to expand...


Seems like a lot of work and $$$ only to have another big dig 20 years after its built :wink:
 
sneijder said:
Seems like a lot of work and $$$ only to have another big dig 20 years after its built :wink:
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. It seems like if it turns out to be possible it would definitely be cheaper than the NSRL, but there are so many cost unknowns that I wouldn't even begin to know how to think about. The biggest would be that you'd be building this right on top of the tunnels and that's going to be miserable. That's not even including possibly needing to reconstruct multiple ramps at either end, or even how you'd get the South Station tracks to an acceptable level and still have room for a platform. Worst case scenario there is only a single station smack in the middle of the Greenway.

But hey. You'd finally connect the Blue Line to the commuter rail.
 
Where RER is a defined term based on Paris' 1960s to 1990s re-invention of its old rail network with a cross tunnel and transit frequencies. In French, it is an acronym, everywhere else is a concept, kind of like they also gave the world the word "Metro"
 
Question about NSRL that seems relevant to capacities: In the 4-Track build is the proposal for any sort of flying junction at either end, or a simple level junction to bring all of the lines together?
 
ulrichomega said:
Question about NSRL that seems relevant to capacities: In the 4-Track build is the proposal for any sort of flying junction at either end, or a simple level junction to bring all of the lines together?
Click to expand...

Level. There isn't room to do it any other way. The underground mash-ups are pretty much mirror-images of their surface counterparts layout-wise, just with fewer total tracks involved.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Level. There isn't room to do it any other way. The underground mash-ups are pretty much mirror-images of their surface counterparts layout-wise, just with fewer total tracks involved.
Click to expand...

? If memory serves, the latest feasibility study called for flying junction(s) at least at the north end. Which, I mean, perhaps was a debatable decision, but I'm pretty sure that's what was presented.
 
Riverside said:
? If memory serves, the latest feasibility study called for flying junction(s) at least at the north end. Which, I mean, perhaps was a debatable decision, but I'm pretty sure that's what was presented.
Click to expand...

Not quite. There's a flying junction on the mainline before the portals so traffic can cross over, but the actual portal splits are level. Not really sure what's going on there to force that, other than there must be some kind of level difference between tunnel bores that goes askew somewhere between leaving the North Station platforms and crossing the Charles River which they (1) have to close up in time for hitting the portals, and (2) have to avoid squishing traffic to one side or the other upon entering the station because otherwise it would limit routing options and traffic levels too much.

The renderings in the final report weren't all pretty and 3D for the portals like they were for the stations, so impossible to visualize what they're getting at from engineering standpoint.
 
sneijder said:
https://twitter.com/MBTA_CR/status/1134170826578808837

MBTA Tweeted yesterday about 4-miles of double tracking on the Franklin out by 495. Hopefully can allow for some extra express runs.
Click to expand...


It will extend the Walpole passing siding just past the station/junction/diamond and take it to the foot of the grade crossing adjacent to Norfolk station.

It will NOT increase service levels to Forge Park (need bigger layover yard for that), but will zap the biggest source of delays on the schedule. And since it's such a lengthy installation of DT it cuts the remaining backlog of single on the Franklin Main down to just a few chunks of reasonable length to backfill for full-time Foxboro service (Norwood Central to Windsor Gardens) and RER (WG to Walpole Tunnel, Walpole Station, Norfolk to Franklin Layover).
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...mcb-I-commuter-rail-zone-study-accessible.pdf

Finally the T is taking a comprehensive look at pounding out the huge number of inequities in the commuter rail Zone system in favor of a distribution that's fairer and more balanced.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with what they are implying, but making the non-1A 128 CR stops cheaper at the expense of making outside 128 stops more expensive is not going to go over well, especially since it's already expensive as it is.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...mcb-I-commuter-rail-zone-study-accessible.pdf

Finally the T is taking a comprehensive look at pounding out the huge number of inequities in the commuter rail Zone system in favor of a distribution that's fairer and more balanced.
Click to expand...


Whether or not significant of a revision to the zone fare structure is eventually made, this could be an excellent opportunity to streamline interzone fares. Simply applying a flat fare matching current local bus pricing for any trip that neither originates nor ends in zones 1/1A would encourage ridership outside the cbd, would be a step toward increased and more equitable service, and could make a meaningful difference in the lives of people dependent on cr for short trips between outlying stops.
 
I just returned from Melbourne, Australia several weeks ago. I was there on business but I took the time to visit their Metro Tunnel Information Center.https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/contact/metro-tunnel-hq

According to a quick Google Search, Greater Boston has 4.6 million people. Greater Melbourne is very similar at 4.4 million people.

I was just blown away with the outreach and information provided in this center. Melbourne is building a rail tunnel under the central city to handle upwards of 500,000 people a day with a "turn up and go" urban regional rail schedule. They are building new trains, new stations with platform screen doors, new signaling systems, and new infrastructure.

Maps, models, and detailed construction information was available for EACH month at this information center. I took two paper fold-up models for a tunnel boring machine and a new train as free souvenirs! I was just so impressed at the public outreach and the detail available for every Melbourne citizen.

Then I come back to Boston. I happened to ride the Red Line this past Monday evening the night before the derailment. Quincy Adams was a disaster with the garage being updated. It could be SO NICE, but the ceiling looks like it was put together with tin and wooden 2X4's. When I returned at 11pm, the escalator area to the garage was SO DARK, I thought it was the scene of some murder mystery. I literally could not see the treads on the escalators because it was so dark.

Then the whole Red Line just melted down the next day. What is wrong with us? Australia is a very car-centric society too! It's certainly not Europe or Japan, but they seem to be investing in regional rail that allows millions of people to cover vast distances in the Melbourne area with ease.

I know I'm ranting, but I think Boston has such an amazing legacy rail system that most cities would kill for. However, we are letting it fall apart and not investing in a modern regional rail system that connects the North, South, and Western suburbs!

Recently, I had to travel from Greenbush (5 minutes walking from my house) to Lawrence (The office I was visiting was across from the train station.) and Google was showing me over 3.5 hours by rail. Of course, I drove right through the city!

My trip on the Red Line on Monday evening was because the Greenbush schedule had 2 hours gaps from 6:30pm to 8:30pm to 10:00pm as return options. I had a presentation downtown scheduled for 6:00pm. Surly, I'm not the only one that travels outside of the traditional commuting hours?

I'm a huge transportation advocate, but I'm getting to the point that I should just drive everywhere like everyone else because there are no reasonable transportation options!

OK..........thanks for my letting me rant. I'm sure I'll continue to take the Greenbush line and Red Line until they just disintegrate. :)
 
Java King said:
I'm a huge transportation advocate, but I'm getting to the point that I should just drive everywhere like everyone else because there are no reasonable transportation options!
Click to expand...

And the cycle continues. When gas prices started getting high about a decade ago you saw calls for better transit. Now that it's cheaper again everyone forgot about it. This country still prioritizes cars over transit and until a new generation of leaders steps in to make the right policy changes then everything will stay the same.
 
Traffic is getting so f-ing terrible though. Without transit, the region can't grow.
 
tysmith95 said:
Traffic is getting so f-ing terrible though. Without transit, the region can't grow.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most drivers cannot make the connection between better transit and improved traffic conditions. The messaging just does not seem to get through.

The concept that: every passenger on the T is a potential car that is not sitting in front of me, does not compute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top