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

Equilibria said:
The infills at Sweetser Circle and Wonderland are deeply questionable to me. All those bus connections can be made at Sullivan and Wonderland/Blue, and saying that Sweeter Circle is convenient to Encore strains credulity.
Click to expand...

Revere too. This is not a site conducive to usable walkshed lost underneath the ramp spaghetti of the 1A/16/145 interchanges. That used to be the B&M stop because it was the union station for the junction with the East Boston Branch and any pax service routed to the Eastie ferry terminals. But it unsurprisingly was cut from the roster by the Depression when the MDC parkways all started massing up against it and chopping up the walkshed. And has never been officially studied as any infill candidate at any point since because the would-be station entrance sits right in the middle of all that traffic terror at the bridge.

It pretty much has a born prerequisite of heavy road dieting before it's physically possible to tap the heavy surrounding residential. But that's thrown in without self-reflection. Again, without any shown math as to how the line will run its schedule faster in spite of 5 new infills because "safety theater" is just some boogeyman hand-waved at instead of given any point-by-point justification. I mean, don't get me wrong: there probably is some substantial amount of rule inflexibility in there...but every last bit of it pure imaginary "theater"??? You can't not show the math on a claim that big.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
  • FINALLY!...the Peabody Branch is namechecked! It's still nebulously phased-out vs. the infills and they don't describe how it affects the diesel vs. electric fleet shares discrepancy, but it finally gets put to words after being absent entirely in the first-take Implementation Plan. Progress! Tacked-on progress, but some of the whoppers from last time about turning ops at Beverly, tunnel vs. drawbridge capacity, etc. are coalescing towards their most-obvious resolutions.
Click to expand...
February 2018, Regional Rail for Metropolitan Boston, Page 23:
(Also in plaintext: http://transitmatters.org/rolling-out-regional-rail)
1615907827304.png

F-Line to Dudley said:
  • These guys employ Mr. "Electronics Before Concrete" Alon Levy, right?
Click to expand...
Alon is not a paid employee of TransitMatters. They are a volunteer.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
February 2018, Regional Rail for Metropolitan Boston, Page 23:
(Also in plaintext: http://transitmatters.org/rolling-out-regional-rail)
View attachment 11214
Click to expand...

But not in the 2020 Eastern Route report. Where its absence was extremely conspicuous amid the unexplained contradictions on how they were going to juggle Beverly electric short-turns with diesel thru service and large amount of yard deadheading around the tunnel + seasonally-constrained swing bridge.

This is good progress, because the disappearing act last year was one of the biggest elephants in the room re: how they were going to pull off the ops. It wasn't explainable without any use of the Peabody Branch tunnel turnout and some use of the turnout's platform at Salem. It still needs better integration into the overall plan because Peabody Branch can crucially salvage the biggest math contradiction re: how electrification to Beverly is justifiable with supermajority of :30 + :30 = :15 service there still being run on diesel. Electrify to Peabody and at least 1/3 of service is all-electric every trip plus whatever rounding-up tricks you can pull with Beverly short-turns. That's probably still not enough to justify early-starts electrification in Phase I vs. a more substantial northside electric splash in Phase II...but it's an unqualified BIG step in the right direction to now be giving it substantial pub.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
  • And they're going to lump infills at (1) Sullivan, (2) Sweetser Circle, (3) Revere Center, (4) 'Zombie' Wonderland, and (5) South Salem to no schedule detriment because 70 years of native speeds are so chum-packed with "safety theater"??? Really...these guys found 5 stop dwells' worth of pure, unadulterated performative "safety theater" in there?
Click to expand...

Theres a lot of culture that needs to be changed with commuter railroads in response to dwell time.

And Im not just talking about the employees.

On the subway, people move to the door and are stepping off the train the instance the door opens and lets them out.

On commuter rail, the culture seems to be that passengers remain seated and only stand up when the train stops.

Conductors encourage this behavior because they are essentially doing "all aboard" calls at every stop (with a flashlight) and are content to hold the train as long as needed to ensure everyone can take their sweet time to get on and off.

Add doors, add beeping, and start to train people that you have 6 seconds (or whatever) to get on or off and we're moving with or without you*


*Conductors still have the ability to override this and allow longer dwell times for ADA passengers as needed
 
jass said:
Theres a lot of culture that needs to be changed with commuter railroads in response to dwell time.

And Im not just talking about the employees.

On the subway, people move to the door and are stepping off the train the instance the door opens and lets them out.

On commuter rail, the culture seems to be that passengers remain seated and only stand up when the train stops.

Conductors encourage this behavior because they are essentially doing "all aboard" calls at every stop (with a flashlight) and are content to hold the train as long as needed to ensure everyone can take their sweet time to get on and off.

Add doors, add beeping, and start to train people that you have 6 seconds (or whatever) to get on or off and we're moving with or without you*


*Conductors still have the ability to override this and allow longer dwell times for ADA passengers as needed
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that massive improvements are possible. But five infills' worth while running faster than today??? This plan is singularly reliant on a secret sauce of reclaimed waste time without ID'ing all of where that waste is going to be reclaimed from. I don't, for instance, think you're going to net the time savings claimed around 100+ year-old movable bridge approaches who've had speed restrictions for the entirety of that century without a very large outlay for approach mods to raise speeds. The claim that that can be done ops-only runs contrary to the body of civil engineering analysis history with extremely old structures. [¡Citation needed!] They claim this is all achievable by adopting lightweight-enough rolling stock. Well, when exactly are we expecting to build this magically taut schedule: 2025 or some forever-over-the-rainbow future decade? And how does that superlight ingredient in the secret sauce square with the reality that supermajority of mainline service is going to be handled until some much further-off later Phase by the same-old porky diesels as before because electrification goes only halfway?

The T's RFI for EMU's has already received its 6 interested manufacturer bids over a year ago, so we have known-known weight profiles for every possible purchase option. We have already passed one critical litmus test for what the market will bear. Most of them are not appreciably lightweight, even though the RFI specs did bake in the newly-relaxed FRA regs to incorporate the best that's feasibly biddable on this continent right now. 2 of the 3 single-level car bidders aren't even options because one (Rotem) doesn't have a Buy America-capable factory and one (CRRC) is barred from receiving any Federal funding offsets due to trade sanctions against the Chinese. So probabilities have already swung heavily in-favor of a bi-level make being the most likely outcome. Is this scheduler-saver secret sauce calculated on what the only actual bidder interest was for cars purchasable this decade, or some more-perfect reference case straight out of the ether? If it requires extensive lobbying the Federal Government to further change national regs in order for said secret sauce to work...what timetable is this project supposed to be on, because that's not likely to favor a this-decade implementation for the Commonwealth with all the external dependencies required? And if it requires manufacturers who aren't/weren't interested in bidding to be dragged screaming to the table in a re-bid...what kind of target-fixated changes to the bid process (if even legally allowable) and what kind of wishful thinking about the machinations of individual for-profit companies has to break just so in order to bring about that perfectly across-board "theater"-slaying outcome?

At some point hope for future perfectionism has to pivot to what can be done--by the Commonwealth, without wishful-thinking additional help from some unnamed higher power--with the tools available now, so this show can get on the road this decade. Or else it's arguing for argument's sake, like a blogger manifesto would. So we have 6 vehicle designs the market has deemed biddable here, and no major ID'd flaws that any experts have pointed to in that heavily-scrutinized RFI process where arbitrary specs-nitpicking precluded that One Great Superlight Vehicle™ whose manufacturer was itching to get into the U.S. bidding game. How do those known bids each fare on raised speeds limits around the curves, crossings, and movable-bridge approaches to lather on this secret sauce? How does the continued indefinite stay of the diesels holding down majority of slots factor into this? And if there's a gap between those known-known bids and idealized-bid-that-got-discouraged-because-of-some-bullshit...where's that gap and how big is it? And what's the gap and how big is it in the "safety theater" practiced with ye olde diesel push-pulls? It's all a simple math calculation now. We get no attribution for any of that in this revision, just hand-waving that it's all "safety theater". With a year to revise after significant tells like the RFI results we're now past a point where they could tell us exactly...on a sliding scale...which restrictions are more "theater" vs. the restrictions that are less "theater" and might just have something to them requiring a bona fide capital solution to be engineered before pulling off (structural bridge loadings, for instance). And could tell us where...on a sliding scale...the law-of-averages tradeoffs are going to be on MOAR intermediates on the schedule vs. MOAR faster through the schedule.

Is that being substantiated such that the document can fend off the Baker Admin.'s incessant trolling, the input of qualified railway engineers, and the concerns of Legislators wary of hidden costs? No. It's being emphasized ever more stridently as manifesto. I'd love to be able to tally this up point-by-point to see which sliding-scale improvements are more-plausible vs. less-plausible, because that's an EXTREMELY important breakout discussion to be having. It's quite likely there is a lot of slayed conentional-wisdom B.S. in the findings. But there's no roadmap being offered for determining how much/to what extent. Just dogma. The truth is never that simplistic...in every situation, everywhere all across the corridor. But the way this is being pitched, we can't parse any of those inflection points via what's realistically mountable for a fast-starts project this decade. You either believe it's all "theater" or none of it.

That isn't going to sway anyone to jump aboard this coalition. The secret sauce ingredients are not proprietary. We need them all named if we want to get this show on the road and convince Legislators to fund something that has provable path to staying in budget. Multiple revisions into this Implementation Plan, they still don't want to cross that threshold for some reason. That's very frustrating. If they aren't going to cross that threshold in point-by-point advocacy, who now will?
 
Last edited:
F-Line is right. This isn’t a wonk problem, it’s a hack problem. In other words we have the experts and can tweak the finer points, but we don’t have the political will... yet.

We all need to get smarter and louder politically. I know I have asked my rep and senator to back the NSRL in person and in print, but I could do much more.
Also, F-Line (or anyone in the know), I have an engineering question: Are the NSRL construction zones/entry points reserved/purchased yet?
 
I don’t think so. I think the previously planned South portal location toward Back Bay Station is under construction. The Northwest is definitely being encroached upon by developers. Also for the CAT to Ft Point crossover at Hook Lobster , the owners are gearing up for a new building which may not include a tunnel under it.
Please calm me down, brethren.
 
Back Bay portal is in the NEC pit a few feet east of the Washington St. overpass. The others are flanking the north wedge of Amtrak Southampton Yard, and SE corner of Boston Engine Terminal. All of it is present-day T or Amtrak -owned land.

The main bore may/may not have some land acquisition around shafts and station egresses, but not much overall because it's 100+ ft. below ground. It's mostly way below any building foundations it would pass under.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
Seriously - do you have the coordinates where there are set asides for all four approach tunnels?
These are my guesses. Tell me if I win.
Northwest?
Dropped pin
goo.gl

42°22'24.8"N 71°04'23.0"W

goo.gl goo.gl
Northeast?
Dropped pin
goo.gl

42°22'39.5"N 71°04'35.0"W

goo.gl goo.gl
No clue on the south.
Click to expand...

It isn't precise to the spraypaint marks on the ground. Generally speaking the NEC portal has to slot at around the Washington St. overpass on the NEC where there's a gap between the Worcester and Providence tracks, be absolutely no further west than the Shawmut Ave. overpass because the Orange Line tunnel is passing under fairly shallow, and be absolutely no further east than the Harrison overpass because the gap between tracks disappears. The Old Colony and Fairmount portals frame the northern tip of Amtrak Southampton Yard. There is not enough runup space at FRA-allowable climbing grades to combine them clear of the yard to the north, so they'll split at extremely shallow level and hit daylight on the northern third of the property on their respective lines. The northside portals come up flanking the SE tip of Boston Engine Terminal in mirror image of the Southampton portals: one on Fitchburg, one for Lowell/Eastern/Western...similarly because they run out of climbing room at allowable grades and have to fork off very shallow before popping up at the surface. Both portals will probably stay well southeasterly of the BET building, since the Lowell/Eastern/Western one will have enough sorting space to switch tracks before the Lowell Line peels off from the Eastern+Western.

The portal locations are basically the same regardless of which mainline tunnel routing they choose. Neither Congress St. nor CA/T alignment nor which city block South Station Under straddles changes their locations. The approach tunnels themselves are all locked on-footprint underneath the surface tracks; no guessing games required. They descend at steady grade to slip under any Big Dig ramp tunnels encountered in the vicinity of SS and NS, but are otherwise spatially contained underneath all-existing RR tracks.
 
I remember when they were looking at alternative locations for the GLX maintenance facility, a couple of options on the north side of the North Point development were ruled out in part because they were on top of the NSRL portal location for the Fitchburg Line. So clearly there's an awareness that they need to keep those places unbuilt-on.
 
ceo said:
I remember when they were looking at alternative locations for the GLX maintenance facility, a couple of options on the north side of the North Point development were ruled out in part because they were on top of the NSRL portal location for the Fitchburg Line. So clearly there's an awareness that they need to keep those places unbuilt-on.
Click to expand...

From your lips to God's ears.......
 
Riverside said:
TransitMatters has released their report on the Eastern Route: A Better Newburyport/Rockport Line.

For those who don't know, TransitMatters are probably the most vocal (or at least most visible) advocates of the Regional Rail concept, and this report continues a bit of a tradition they've developed of trying to identify specific actionable improvements, with an eye to the short-term, medium-term, and long-term alike.

TransitMatters members are active on this forum, including one of our moderators, @datadyne007. So, I'm sharing the report here to discuss (and I'll offer my thoughts on it myself later this week), but hope that the conversation can remain productive and constructive.
Click to expand...

A bit later than I'd hoped, but nonetheless, here are some thoughts.

Overall

In general, I find my reaction to this report is similar to my reactions to other TM reports: I (really) like the specifics-heavy proposals, and I'm wary of some of the vaguer ideas.

The Key Takeaways

As always, this report drives home the most important points: fare integration and frequent service (with the infrastructure improvements to support that). Honestly, if TM set everything else aside and just focused on fare integration, that would be a worthwhile goal. That graphic of CR + Orange vs Bus + Blue prices is really striking.

Beyond that, I think to me the most important part of the report was the very targeted recommendations for double-tracking -- notably, if memory serves, only requiring new track in Ipswich. That's a very compelling recommendation: "For the cost of adding a short stretch of double track, you can run the entire Eastern Route system at mid-high frequencies." (Not as high freq as you'd get with full-highs and electrification, but still pretty damn good.)

Those represent two very specific and actionable proposals that would have wide-ranging benefits, and I quite like.

I also liked the attention drawn to the reverse commute market (which I hadn't previously given as much thought to, and which I think distinguishes the Eastern Route from most others), as well as the unusually high degree of walkability of Eastern Route stations.

I'm glad to see the Peabody Branch included, in particular the exhortation to saveguard the ROW from development. The "last mile" extension into Newburyport isn't something I've heard of before, but I think it's an interesting idea, and dovetails with other strengths that are highlighted in this report (walkability, reverse commutes, rail travel to leisure destinations).

Bus Ridership from Lynn

One aspect I was surprised to see omitted was discussion of the current bus ridership levels from Lynn (and to a lesser extent, Salem). After quickly eyeballing figures in the Better Bus Profiles, it looks to me like there may be as many as 4,000 commuters who currently take the bus from Lynn all the way to Boston (or to Wonderland); presumably, with Fare Integration & Frequent Service™, many of those riders would be interested in taking the faster rail service instead. I mention this because both Salem and Beverly were namechecked for their high ridership, but those bus ridership numbers suggest hidden opportunity at Lynn (which makes the overall case for Regional Rail on the Eastern Route more compelling).

(Note that I am not actually claiming a trademark on "Fare Integration & Frequent Service" -- I'm using the trademark symbol figuratively to indicate a "brandable" concept. You could also use "Free Transfers & Frequent Service" too.)

Infills

I have mixed feelings about those infills between River Works and North Station. I understand the need to build a coalition along the line and to promote environmental justice, but very few of these seem to "work" well; while it would be nice to check the box of serving every city along the route, if all the infills were skipped, you'd still have Chelsea, Lynn, Swampscott, Salem, (Peabody, Danvers,) Beverly, and Newburyport in the bag, which is a pretty damn good pedigree. To be clear, I'd love to find a way to provide improved service to Revere and Everett. But I don't think the Eastern Route is a particularly strong candidate for doing so.

For example: this is the Revere St (Wonderland) location:

Screen Shot 2021-03-22 at 6.36.45 PM.png


To the north: marsh. To the south: marsh. To the east: Blue Line and the Oak Island isthmus. To the west: half a mile of walkable residential area, bounded by a divided four-lane boulevard with no pedestrian crossing. I don't think this location is very promising. I think bus lanes on Route 107 (which I believe may have been recently earmarked in the latest budget?) would be much more cost effective at speeding riders' commutes into Boston, while leveraging existing (and known) ridership patterns and serving a higher density area.

I don't think the Revere Center location fares too much better.

Screen Shot 2021-03-22 at 6.51.51 PM.png


As F-Line notes, that location is bracketed by a four-lane divided road to the east, a six-lane divided road to the north, a four-lane divided road to the west, and an industrial site to the south.

That being said, if I had to choose one infill between Sullivan and River Works to keep, it would be this one. The industrial site can be redeveloped, and road diets are a thing. (Imagine Revere Beach Parkway slimmed down to one lane in each direction, with a linear park and bike path and maybe even new housing in place of the asphalt.) I think there's possibility here -- for new development. I don't see rail service diverting current bus passengers from Broadway over to here.

The Everett site seems better served by BRT infrastructure being added to the south -- especially if integrated with through-running routes to downtown and Kendall (as has recently been proposed). I could be convinced though. BRT could offer more direct service to downtown (plus a one-seat ride -- worth noting because that location seems to have lower potential for walkup ridership), but rail would be undeniably faster, even with the transfer.

I do think the Sullivan infill is a solid idea though.

1) Offers express service to North Station from this major bus transfer hub (hello Orange Line relief)
2) Offers North Shore commuters direct transfer to Cambridge and Somerville buses, diverting them from the core
3) Offers some of the same benefits as an Everett station, in that it would pick up some of those same Everett bus riders

So, big +1 to the Sullivan infill. (And to the South Salem infill too.)

The Map

Before talking about electrification, I do also want to point out that the map at the end of the document still has almost all of the same issues I pointed out at the end of my post from last June. I do not think that it does a good job illustrating the benefits of Regional Rail.

more below
 
Electrification

Contrary to @F-Line to Dudley's summary, I think TM very clearly lays out their proposal for how to square the diesel/electric mode split:

If there is only budget to electrify as far as Beverly in the near term, then the branch lines will need to be served by short-turning diesel trains at Beverly Depot. It is not possible to run diesel trains as expresses between Beverly and Boston without severely harming reliability for Beverly-Boston local service. Dual-mode multiple units do exist, but they are expensive to purchase and maintain: the cost premium over standard EMUs is high enough that it rivals the cost of simply electrifying the branch lines. Electrifying both branch lines as soon as possible is ultimately the most economical and efficient solution
Click to expand...

In other words, a) short-turn diesels à la MNRR's Waterbury Branch, b) purchase dual modes, c) electrify both lines to termini.

Quite candidly, and recognizing that I'm very much on the outside looking in (both in terms of this project, and in terms of profession), this all-or-nothing approach seems like a mistake to me.

TransitMatters is at their most effective when they lay out incremental proposals that build for the future, are readily achievable, and will have high immediate impact. (Consider the Lynn Zone 1A project, or near-hourly service to Lynn and to Brockton.)

From what I can tell, there are two primary downsides to deferred (or deprioritized) electrification:

1) Somewhat slower service due to slower acceleration
2) Less favorable emissions from the rail vehicles

However, diesel service is still perfectly compatible with almost all the other proposals and benefits outlined in this document:

1) Fare integration
2) Full high platforms
3) Double-tracking at Ipswich
4) Radically more frequent service
5) Peabody branch
6) Newburyport extension
7) South Salem infill
8) Sullivan infill

I'd like to see a workup of a potential timetable running diesel service at 30 minute headways. Too much of the report rests on the tacit assumption of electrification, which leaves it vulnerable to the misperception that none of these other benefits are possible without it.

Two further points about those downsides: first, for the majority of riders (i.e. those boarding from Beverly and south), the travel time difference is less than 10 minutes. Diesel keeps you from building all of those infills, true, but the case for those infills is much weaker than the present-and-urgent case for Fare-Integrated-Frequent-Service to Chelsea, River Works, Lynn, Salem, and Beverly. The service isn't that much slower.

Second, while it's true that electric trains would have fewer local emissions than diesel, I'd also want to see a workup of the overall net effect of frequent diesel, encompassing the subsequent direct reduction in auto emissions, and indirect reduction in auto emissions provided by increased local bus capacity. Particularly when multiplied out over the course of the years it would take to electrify the system, I think that benefit is non-trivial.

(Yes, the report advocates for an interim diesel service, but I think it understates the benefits of that service, and falls dangerously close to making the Perfect become the enemy of the Pretty Damn Good.)

To summarize: I think the report would be better served if it treated diesel as the default option, and articulated all of the benefits that can be achieved without electrification. Electrification could then be presented as an add-on, but avoiding the perception of "all-or-nothing."

Conclusion

My complaints about electrification notwithstanding, I think this is a great piece. There are multiple clear actionable proposals presented, and it definitely has changed my line of thinking about several aspects of the Eastern Route corridor. I hope that MassDOT and the T are listening -- there are good and easy wins for them here, to say nothing of solid victories for the riding public. As before, I offer my comments here in what I hope is a friendly collegial spirit. I really like the work TransitMatters does, and I was thrilled when this report came out, and have really enjoyed digging into it; I hope we'll see more in the days to come!
 
American agencies and "piloting" proven concepts for years on end, name a better pair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top