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

Re: North-South Rail Link

TransitMatters statement: http://transitmatters.org/blog/2018/6/19/nsrl

TransitMatters said:
The MBTA’s cost estimate for the North South Rail Link (NSRL), released yesterday, is the most recent in a series of estimates for this project. Those estimates, from under $4 billion to over $20 billion, run the gamut of construction methods, infrastructure choices, and cost assumptions. These huge disparities underscore that cost estimates for major infrastructure projects have to be assessed based on their underlying assumptions. TransitMatters believes that there are many reasons yesterday’s cost estimates are as large as they are, not least the assumptions and selective comparisons employed by the MBTA’s consultant.

In our report on Regional Rail (excluding the NSRL) we estimated 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. We stand by that estimate and do not believe the electrification and rolling stock costs estimated in yesterday’s MBTA presentation are consistent with the most relevant and appropriate comparative examples of which we are aware.

We read yesterday’s presentation to the Fiscal Management and Control Board as an affirmation of our view that South Station expansion (SSX) should not move forward – it is, by any measure, too little bang for way too much buck. The MBTA’s consultant now estimates SSX will cost $4.7 billion, money that simply does not need to be spent in order to improve the functionality of existing tracks at South Station. There are other, much lower cost approaches to improving operations at South Station as we indicated in our Regional Rail report, and we will offer more a more detailed roadmap to doing that in a follow-up report we expect to release in the early fall.

With regard to NSRL itself, we stated in our report, and repeat here: “cost estimates for NSRL, undertaken by MassDOT consultants and independent third parties, significantly vary in range. These variances often are attributable to consultants not comparing like-to-like or using different methodologies. The reality is that actual costs can vary greatly depending on the quality and complexity of project designs, labor costs, and many other factors. Massachusetts has learned valuable lessons in cost containment through its recent Green Line Extension experience, and we would expect the same rigorous approach to providing maximum value for reasonable cost to apply here as well.”

TransitMatters continues to believe that the only route forward for the MBTA is to advance a transition to Regional Rail, an electrified intercity rail system with frequent service during the day. The Regional Rail model is critical. While not critical to implementing a Regional Rail system, the NSRL would be a highly useful enhancement providing the flexibility and connectivity to which many riders and potential riders would be drawn. We hope and expect that a candid and open-minded conversation on both of these initiatives will continue.

Without a commitment to a new Business Model for intercity rail, our region will continue to experience crippling traffic congestion and people will be deprived of the kind of access to jobs and opportunity that is necessary for a thriving economy and decent quality of life. We look forward to collaborating with the MBTA and all stakeholders as we make Regional Rail a reality.

We will be doing an in-depth piece in Commonwealth soon regarding the assumptions we feel are off, including cost of electrification, vehicle procurement strategy and cost, tunnel specs, construction methodology, inclusion of South Station Expansion, and failure to account for systemic operational savings.
 
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link

To me, the study also demonstrates the importance of transitioning to electric powered vehicles on the the Providence, Fairmount, and Stoughton line immediately. By the time they even get to the design phase for NSRL, they should already be partially electrified and using electric locomotives or EMUs. They should also be well underway in electrifying some or all of the Worcester Line. Get that element out of the NSRL calculus because it is a must-do standalone project in its own right if they have any chance of making service improvements anytime in the next ten years.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Reading the brief, the report is clearly intended to kill support for this project or at least play on peoples fear of the big dig costs.

Half the price and it still makes no sense. Money is better spent elsewhere

They said the model does not assume land use change. That is going to greatly reduce projected ridership, especially for the run through commuters.

You must be new to MA.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Don't worry, this is exactly how I saw it. Plenty of others did too. The presentation was specifically curated to boost the pointless SSX and kill NSRL. Thankfully, Joe Aiello was not falling for it.

That's what I thought.

We need your voice on this DD!

Post edit: I just saw TransitMatters' statement - - excellent, thank you!
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

^^or rather DD just needs to be put in charge of the project.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Half the price and it still makes no sense. Money is better spent elsewhere



You must be new to MA.

At half the price its a no brainer at less than $10 Billion including electrification, new rolling stock, etc.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

F-Line, good to see you back, if even for a brief moment.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Given the costs of the GLX I am extraordinarily skeptical the tunneling, track work, electrification, portals and stations can be built for $8.6bn.

Given the costs of GLX I would be surprised if the MBTA could cross the street for less than a cool $Billion.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Anyone attending the meeting tonight at 10 Park Plaza?
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Even the lowest cost NSRL option includes central station. Would love to see how much it would cost without this, and without lumping in new car procurements, etc.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Even the lowest cost NSRL option includes central station. Would love to see how much it would cost without this, and without lumping in new car procurements, etc.

Looking at a lot of the slides, I'm seeing plenty '2-station' plans.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Looking at a lot of the slides, I'm seeing plenty '2-station' plans.

I stand corrected- the diagram for the central artery looks like 3 but realizing now that’s for the 4 track option, not 2. Thanks-
 
Re: North-South Rail Link


Seems like a pretty thorough indictment of the State study which deserves a clear and concise response. Basically saying they quadrupled the costs for stupid reasons and going so far as saying the claims are fraudulent... in that they said something about the Harvard Study that was untrue in order to justify their much higher estimates.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Seems like a pretty thorough indictment of the State study which deserves a clear and concise response. Basically saying they quadrupled the costs for stupid reasons and going so far as saying the claims are fraudulent... in that they said something about the Harvard Study that was untrue in order to justify their much higher estimates.

The contingency point can't be disputed. The HKS graduate students mention it over and over again. The rest of his argument...

I don't think anyone disputes that if we ripped out the whole CR system and did something else, this project could be cheaper. I thought the dual mode solution was clunky on Monday. Really, though, Alon makes 3 major arguments in here:

- The MassDOT study assumes 2 bores, while the HKS students proposed one. I'm not an expert in tunneling, but Alon essentially argues qualitatively here: "all those tunnels assume higher speeds, but this one wouldn't have to, so you can fit 4 tracks in a 2-track bore". He doesn't give an example of this actually being done, FWIW, he just asks the reader to believe him that it could.

- The MassDOT study proposes dual-mode locomotives and existing carriages, as did the HKS students. Alon argues that the study was negligent for not proposing full electrification of the system, which would allow steeper grades.

- The MassDOT study assumes 17TPH, while some other systems can do better.

Alon is an activist and is applying an activist's perspective. He doesn't consider constructability (and misleads readers about the MassDOT study in the same breath as he correctly accuses MassDOT of lying - the words "launch pit" never appear in the HKS study, and that's a big piece of TBM costs), environmental restrictions, service disruptions, vehicle maintenance, or regulatory restrictions. MassDOT's people were asked to price a project that could actually be built into the current system. Alon starts with the assumption that the TransitMatters urban rail vision MUST happen, and anyone who disagrees is an IDIOT who should be FIRED.

Mostly, as a transportation planner, I'm offended by his haughty tone. TransitMatters took a much more constructive approach in responding to this study, which is absolutely flawed. The NSRL should only be priced out in view of the Commuter Rail vision that the MBTA and MassDOT haven't even finished yet, and which will tell us if there is full electrification or EMUs coming (with lots of public input). Alon has chosen to burn his bridges and may have burned bridges for all of us in the public in regard to NSRL - why even study these things if you're going to get bullied?
 
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link

F-Line, good to see you back, if even for a brief moment.

Lord help me, I commented in the UHub thread on this.:rolleyes:

You can get the gist of my thinking by going there. FWIW, this is the books-cookingest stinkiest part of it all (or if you want the abridged version, just re-read the 2nd-to-last sentence in Eq's post).
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

I went to the meeting last night. Attendees from the NSRL working group ripped DOT pretty harshly. The Transit Matters rep was probably the most polite.

Very intense criticism on process. Brad Bellows asserted that the early promise to spend the study $ 50/50 on costs / benefits got shifted to 95/5. Barry Bluestone went down that path too with emphasis on benefits to drivers who never set foot on a train (decreased road congestion, reduced fuel consumption). Intense anger that cost figures were leaked to the Globe before anything else. So now the scare factor has hit. So far I can’t find anything in the globe today reporting on all this push back.

Bellows also gave examples of how there wasn’t sufficient input from peer groups. The CEO of Herrenknecht (biggest TBM builder) apparently came to a DOT meeting at the working group’s invite. They wanted him to speak on how cities like Leipzig have gotten costs per mile so far below North American levels. DOT allegedly gave him five minutes. If I ever could buttonhole the Herrenknecht CEO he’d be lucky if I didn’t keep him for five days.

The mood was clearly “Baker wants NSRL talk to die and set the report scope parameters to get a report that will scare the public off.”

This is a very brief take on the meeting. Hopefully video gets posted.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

I also attended last night, took some notes and will share thoughts later today/tonight. But I agree with West’s characterization. I had to leave a bit early to catch my train home (perhaps ever so slightly ironically), but by that point the representative from the study had already fallen back several times to the talking point of, “We hope you’ll reserve judgement until you can read the full report next month.” To which I wanted to reply, “Then why hold this meeting tonight instead of in a month? And why release a PowerPoint presentation that, apparently by your own admission, paints an incomplete picture of the findings?”
 

Back
Top