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

[Semass]

I know you're trying to argue otherwise here, but those are beyond-horrible frequencies. The Amtrak Springfield Shuttle runs more frequently than that...and is going to Greenfield soon with debut frequencies better than two much larger MA cities. By the time SCR opens the Downeaster will be running 145 miles to/from Brunswick as frequently as a train at Weir Jct. turns towards Fall River. Such apocryphally bad frequencies, run at horrible travel times on this ugly hack of a routing, will encourage virtually no one to ditch their cars and few to ditch the express commuter buses. The ridership projections for these stops kept getting adjusted down, down, down each step of the way between the DEIR and FEIR. Now with the even more defective project phasing I don't even see how the stops will generate enough trips to not be at risk of service being cut in some future unusually severe budget emergency. It's already hard to picture Phase II ever coming to pass with how enormous a subsidy such extreme-but-inevitable ridership underperformance is going to require.

Everyone who thought "arse-end up" was just a fine and dandy way to manage this project because I/me/my hometown and screw you...is about to find out very bitterly what happens to their future utopia after the pile of money has already been lit on fire.

And if you think THAT'S all dumb, get a load of this:
https://www.tauntongazette.com/news...leased-for-east-taunton-commuter-rail-station
a center platform station for those handful of trains. That requires elevators, buildings, etc. This should absolutely, positively be a single side platform. Other lines handle more with less.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

And if you think THAT'S all dumb, get a load of this:
https://www.tauntongazette.com/news...leased-for-east-taunton-commuter-rail-station
a center platform station for those handful of trains. That requires elevators, buildings, etc. This should absolutely, positively be a single side platform. Other lines handle more with less.

You can do provisioned islands with single track. Rowley is an example. The single platform is 12 ft. wide, island width. But because it's single track one side is just a simple ramp-down egress. If the Newburyport Branch needs double-track they just build an up-and-over, demolish the ramp, and lay Track 2. If double isn't an imminent follow-up add, there's no reason to build the up-and-over.


And East Taunton is a sad, sad downgrade location-wise from the Taunton Depot stop it replaces due to this useless routing. Ridership's going to be painfully lower.

 

[Coyote137]

Politically speaking, what is Charlie's hard-on for this project about?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Politically speaking, what is Charlie's hard-on for this project about?

Politically speaking, what is Deval's hard-on for this project about?

Politically speaking, what is Mitt's hard-on for this project about?

Politically speaking, what is Jane's hard-on for this project about?

Politically speaking, what is Paul's hard-on for this project about?

Politically speaking, what is Bill's hard-on for this project about?

Seals will clap at the possibility of fish. :s

 

[DominusNovus]

Had an idea for an NSRL ad: Two maps of Boston, side by side.
On the left: ‘Boston by car’ which looks pretty much normal, the highways where they are, crossing the Charles River, connecting North and South.
On the right: ‘Boston by train’ which has stretched the width of the Charles into a gigantic bay, with the area around North Station a little island of the coast of Cambridge.

 

[sneijder]

You may recall that a few years ago the MBTA came out with plans to rebuild the Newton commuter rail stations for accessibility as single side platforms. To successfully achieve RER like frequencies, this needs to be a two-track stretch. It was walked back by Sec. Pollack.

Here we have a public meeting on the stations. I wonder what the recommendation will be? As these three go, so goes urban rail as it will telegraph the T's seriousness. .

https://mbta.com/events/2019-07-25/newton-stations-accessibility-improvements-project-public-meeting

Reposting from the Amtrak thread. Hopefully with the RailVision chatter going on they will propose an island or double side platforms.. Is there a cost-benefit to each option?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Reposting from the Amtrak thread. Hopefully with the RailVision chatter going on they will propose an island or double side platforms.. Is there a cost-benefit to each option?

Totally situational. Side platforms are easier around grade crossings and where ground-level egress is available on all sides. Islands are easier when the station is down in a cut where up-and-over access is required, or on elevated stations where doing ramps for 2 platforms ends up a budget blowout.

For the Newton stops, Newtonville and West Newton are much preferable to do as islands. Auburndale, because it's on a curve, might need to be done as 2 sides because curves don't agree with islands that well. Unless they move the whole works a block east onto tangent track, which would be somewhat controversial.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

Last I heard with Newtons, the preferred alternative was a single platform at each but designed to not preclude a future second platform at each station, basically plans for two platforms but only designing and constructing one at each. Unless there has been significant pressure on the MBTA since then I don't expect the directives from the MBTA have changed since I last spoke with the designer of the preliminary design for those stations...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Last I heard with Newtons, the preferred alternative was a single platform at each but designed to not preclude a future second platform at each station, basically plans for two platforms but only designing and constructing one at each. Unless there has been significant pressure on the MBTA since then I don't expect the directives from the MBTA have changed since I last spoke with the designer of the preliminary design for those stations...

After the Auburndale debacle, I would suspect they're not going to show their face in public on designs for any of the 3 without them being double-track platforms off the bat. Barest ADA compliance is 'a' goal, not 'the' only goal. Unclogging the writ-large Worcester Line and increasing service to these stations is what constituents loudly want...as well as no-excuses for backpedalling on Urban Rail because of this contrived 1-platform-now/1-platform-??? inanity.

As is, they'd need to revisit the wisdom of doing separate projects for each platform because that's likely to inflate costs overall for needing to do completely separate touches to MassHighway structures like the overpasses, Pike retaining wall and/or breakdown lane width, plus all the associated overhead with lane closures. For that reason, floating redesigns that attempt an island design when applicable (even if potentially legit reasons make that a non-preferred Alternative) would be necessary fact-finding for seeing what one-and-done consolidated single-egress touches to the overpasses and construction zones further set back from the Pike can do for project costs.

Rider-wise, islands would be MUCH preferable at N'ville + WN because of the additional set-back from Pike noise and road spray that make today's Pike-side platforms a hellish waiting experience. And the Pike can re-gain full breakdown lane width through those stations by moving the platforms to center. Auburndale's far less a concern for those factors because it has more separation from the Pike to begin with.

 

[Equilibria]

After the Auburndale debacle, I would suspect they're not going to show their face in public on designs for any of the 3 without them being double-track platforms off the bat. Barest ADA compliance is 'a' goal, not 'the' only goal. Unclogging the writ-large Worcester Line and increasing service to these stations is what constituents loudly want...as well as no-excuses for backpedalling on Urban Rail because of this contrived 1-platform-now/1-platform-??? inanity.

I would have expected the issue to be that (at least at Auburndale) the streetside platform can be ADA-accessible without an elevator. Once you do an island or highway-side platform you need one...

The T can make a public case that they don't want to be building more elevators when a more reliable and maintenance-light solution exists.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

I would have expected the issue to be that (at least at Auburndale) the streetside platform can be ADA-accessible without an elevator. Once you do an island or highway-side platform you need one...

The T can make a public case that they don't want to be building more elevators when a more reliable and maintenance-light solution exists.

The lastest design directives require two accessible paths to each platform. So each elevator must be accompanied by either a ramp (preferred, won't break down) or another elevator, so one elevator going out of service doesn't make the station inaccessible. But two elevators per side platform means at least four per station which gets experiensive and makes construction take even longer (because elevators still take ridiculously long in MBTA construction)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The lastest design directives require two accessible paths to each platform. So each elevator must be accompanied by either a ramp (preferred, won't break down) or another elevator, so one elevator going out of service doesn't make the station inaccessible. But two elevators per side platform means at least four per station which gets experiensive and makes construction take even longer (because elevators still take ridiculously long in MBTA construction)

The existing stops all have two egresses at two different overpasses anyway, so it wouldn't fly to delete access points that have been around since 1965 unless the stations had to physically shift positions away from certain overpasses. (e.g. curve avoidance for island construction forcing a shift of several dozen to couple hundred feet, structural blocker on one side only for hitting regulation 800 ft. length, etc.)

The good news is that Newtonville's and Auburndale's platforms already far exceed 800 ft. for the convenience of spanning blocks to their separate exits, so the stations are already stretched out enough to do as ramps without many switchbacks required and definitely without need for elevators. West Newton's a bit more compressed and might be a candidate for stretching between Washington (west) to Chestnut instead of squeezing into just the two sides of the Washington rotary.

 

[stick n move]

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiRGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRocmlsbGlzdC5jb20vdHJhdmVsL25hdGlvbi9ib3N0b24tbm9ydGgtc291dGgtcmFpbC1saW5r0gFMaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhyaWxsaXN0LmNvbS9hbXBodG1sL3RyYXZlbC9uYXRpb24vYm9zdG9uLW5vcnRoLXNvdXRoLXJhaWwtbGluaw?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

At least people are mentioning now how this is not just a link between north and south stations... but a break that stops trains from being able to access the northeast corridor from maine and nh. Its so much bigger than just a way to get between but people purposely seem to diminish it to that (walsh, baker) because they want nothing to do with it.

 

[whittle]

So the T is expecting a full electrification cost (with EMUs) to cost $23.6Billion, with the largest portion of that being $10.3Billion for 1450 EMUs, or $7million per car. Compared to the most recent large EMU purchase in the US (NJT's purchase of 113 cars for $669million, $6million per car) it doesn't look too unreasonable, but that's the initial run of a rather experimental mode; considering the full cost of NJT's contract with all options (889 cars for $3.6Billion, $4million per car), I'm very curious how the T arrived at their number. And given the T's history of overestimating the cost of projects the administration doesn't want to do, I'm also suspicious about the estimates of other parts of the cost.

 

[etik]

TransitMatters affiliates and other activists are accusing the administration of heavily sandbagging these numbers. The story goes that, especially with recent regulations on trainsets lifted (therefore allowing purchase of European designs), the price per car should be ~2.5 million. We can also get away with fewer cars. I expect TransmitMatters to issue a rebuttal piece questioning these figures.

https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/1153410751761125379

 

[Arlington]

Are they sandbagging by charging for EMU when electric locomotives could push the cars we have?

Or if the cars we have need to be replaced, they should be charging us for the incremental cost above replacing them with unpowered coaches, not for their full list price.

 

[datadyne007]

So the T is expecting a full electrification cost (with EMUs) to cost $23.6Billion, with the largest portion of that being $10.3Billion for 1450 EMUs, or $7million per car. Compared to the most recent large EMU purchase in the US (NJT's purchase of 113 cars for $669million, $6million per car) it doesn't look too unreasonable, but that's the initial run of a rather experimental mode; considering the full cost of NJT's contract with all options (889 cars for $3.6Billion, $4million per car), I'm very curious how the T arrived at their number. And given the T's history of overestimating the cost of projects the administration doesn't want to do, I'm also suspicious about the estimates of other parts of the cost.

This is truly absurd. We at TransitMatters will be rebutting this in the coming weeks. They should not be including rolling stock procurement costs in the total number when they they need to procure rolling stock EITHER WAY. All along we have been saying "you need to buy new trains anyway, so buy EMUs."

 

[whittle]

TransitMatters affiliates and other activists are accusing the administration of heavily sandbagging these numbers. The story goes that, especially with recent regulations on trainsets lifted (therefore allowing purchase of European designs), the price per car should be ~2.5 million. We can also get away with fewer cars. I expect TransmitMatters to issue a rebuttal piece questioning these figures.

https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/1153410751761125379

They're actually claiming they would only need about 800 coaches/cab cars to maintain the same level of service as 1450 EMUs. So to those here who know more than me:

1. Is there a significant enough difference in capacity between coaches and EMUs to justify this difference?

2. Minus any difference in capacity per car, wouldn't we need less cars since EMUs can complete their journey quicker?

 

[Java King]

So the T is expecting a full electrification cost (with EMUs) to cost $23.6Billion, with the largest portion of that being $10.3Billion for 1450 EMUs, or $7million per car. Compared to the most recent large EMU purchase in the US (NJT's purchase of 113 cars for $669million, $6million per car) it doesn't look too unreasonable, but that's the initial run of a rather experimental mode; considering the full cost of NJT's contract with all options (889 cars for $3.6Billion, $4million per car), I'm very curious how the T arrived at their number. And given the T's history of overestimating the cost of projects the administration doesn't want to do, I'm also suspicious about the estimates of other parts of the cost.

The FMCB Meeting Presentation doesn't make ANY sense to me:

Alternative #1 and Alternative #2 don't increase frequency on Old Colony/Greenbush.......but they say typical frequency is currently 30 minutes peak and 60 minutes off-peak. Currently, there are HUGE gaps in the schedule where you can easily wait 2 hours or more between trains on Greenbush, so this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Then, Alternative #3 says you would lose 5000 riders on Old Colony lines even though you have doubled the number of trains?

F-Line, please explain this logic? I just want a consistent schedule with a train that runs every hour so you can plan your day and actually use the train without having to wait 2 hours or have the last train from South Station be at 10pm. Is that so hard?

We recently used NJ Transit to go from Manhattan to Summit, NJ and it was so easy because the trains were consistently 11 minutes after the hour, every hour.

 

[sneijder]

Just seems silly to look at full electrification and a full EMU fleet right now. Fairly clear that the north side will probably be electrified 10+ years after the south side, and the outer zones of the franklin line and greenbush/plymouth (with single-tracked service) probably don't justify electric service yet (if ever). Heck, doing every line inside 128 (either south only or both north/south) for EMU short-turns would be a cost that is much easier to swallow, with dual-modes providing service outside 128, switching from electric to diesel power (just like the New Haven Line branches).

That order for 1500 EMU's in one shot is such a joke. Never happening.