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

The real proposal should be to convert the silver line to green and connect it to the seaport via a new tunnel, if we're doing crazy transit pitches.
I put that as a reasonable transit pitch, not a crazy one. It makes imminent sense on several fronts, relieving LRV traffic from the GL central subway, and providing direct transit access from the Back Bay to the Seaport and convention center.
 
The real proposal (for, ahem, the North South Rail thread) is simply the Bus Lane Starter Kit:
  • Congress St : North - South - East (its entire length)
  • Stuart-Kneeland-Albany : West - South (connects to Congress at Altantic Wharf)
This does not give you NSRL's "through running" but it does give its "two seat ride from any burb to any point in the core" It let's you build/prove demand/support for this kind of burb-to-core mobility.

This forming a shaped network anchored at
  • West: Back Bay
  • North: North Station
  • South: South Station
  • East: Silver Line Way / Airport
Allowing 4 routes with limited stops that I'd run at 6 bph
  • North - West
  • North - East
  • North - South
  • West - South - East

North-South Leg (18 bph)
North Station - FiDi - South Station
  • North Station @ Canal (CRail Green Orange)
  • Haymarket @ Congress (Green Orange Bus)
  • State St (Blue)
  • PO Square (Franklin St)
  • Atlantic Wharf
  • South Station (CRail Red) (only 12 pbh, from North-West and North-South)

East Leg (Seaport) (12 bph)
FiDi - Seaport
  • Atlantic Wharf (no direct South Station)
  • Farnsworth St
  • B Street
  • Sliver Line Way (Silver / Airport)
West Leg (Back Bay) (12 bph)
Back Bay - FiDi
  • Back Bay (CRail Orange)
  • Berkeley
  • Charles
  • Washington St
  • Lincoln
  • South Station (CRail Red)
  • Atlantic Wharf
  • (joins Atlantic to Silver Line Way)
 
Last edited:
I think the cheapest option would be for the Feds to make there own Acela tunnel right thru downtown and put a station under their GSA building.

Untitled.png
 
I think the cheapest option would be for the Feds to make there own Acela tunnel right thru downtown and put a station under their GSA building.

View attachment 35979
So, I guess...
The South Shore,
Anyone North or Northwest of town,
Downtown and the Financial district,
and South Boston Waterfront riders,
...don't get to play with your trains?

And I'm assuming no stops at any of the four places it has to go under the Green Line.

Nah. NSRL as designed, thanks.
Funny. The scary NSRL price tag 20 years ago was about $3B. That's how much half of a cloverleaf goes for these days.
 
So, I guess...
The South Shore,
Anyone North or Northwest of town,
Downtown and the Financial district,
and South Boston Waterfront riders,
...don't get to play with your trains?

And I'm assuming no stops at any of the four places it has to go under the Green Line.

Nah. NSRL as designed, thanks.
Funny. The scary NSRL price tag 20 years ago was about $3B. That's how much half of a cloverleaf goes for these days.

Correct! Sacrifice for the greater good of NE. Boston would get the residuals eventually. Besides haven't you heard of South Shore vs North Shore? Competition and bragging rights keep the Masshole traditions alive!
 
The Seattle SR 99 4-lane tunnel under downtown there is 1.7 miles long, cost about $ 3.5 billion, and was opened in 2019. Based on that project, it would seem that just doing a 4-track deep bore tunnel, bypassing all of the central artery, might be the most cost effective.
 
The Seattle SR 99 4-lane tunnel under downtown there is 1.7 miles long, cost about $ 3.5 billion, and was opened in 2019. Based on that project, it would seem that just doing a 4-track deep bore tunnel, bypassing all of the central artery, might be the most cost effective.
Isn't the central artery alignment the only one that has protected right-of-ways for portals for all commuter rail lines? Don't you sacrifice some network connectivity (which is what NSRL is really all about, valuable network connections we cannot anticipate before deployment) in the other alignments?
 
I think the cheapest option would be for the Feds to make there own Acela tunnel right thru downtown and put a station under their GSA building.

View attachment 35979

The northeast megalopolis is boston-washington dc, all of the nearby cities to Boston that make this up are south/southwest of the city not north.
 
Isn't the central artery alignment the only one that has protected right-of-ways for portals for all commuter rail lines? Don't you sacrifice some network connectivity (which is what NSRL is really all about, valuable network connections we cannot anticipate before deployment) in the other alignments?
My understanding is that under the 2018 Baker Feasibility Assessment, whether Fairmount and Old Colony get NSRL portals mainly depends on 2-track vs 4-track, not the alignment (Central Artery, State-Congress, Pearl-Congress). They excluded the South Bay portal from the 2-track alternatives likely due to capacity constraints in the tunnel.

However, in reality and in a less sandbagged proposal, not granting NSRL access to Fairmount is just ridiculous. Once you build a portal for Fairmount, that easily functions as a portal for Old Colony. And both State-Congress and Pearl-Congress alternatives seem to allow a South Bay portal to be added easily if you want to.

So no, a well-done design doesn't need to sacrifice network community as long as the NSRL tunnel still runs from South Station to North Station, regardless of alignment.
 
The northeast megalopolis is boston-washington dc, all of the nearby cities to Boston that make this up are south/southwest of the city not north.
Well take into consideration if the Amtrak downeaster issue can be rectified quickly and cheaply, Amtrak could then force its way into Concord New Hampshire the via Lowell /Nashua. Lets see New Hampshire try and stop the Feds from investing in rail infrastructure. The Mega-corridor doesn't need to stop at Boston.
 
Well take into consideration if the Amtrak downeaster issue can be rectified quickly and cheaply, Amtrak could then force its way into Concord New Hampshire the via Lowell /Nashua. Lets see New Hampshire try and stop the Feds from investing in rail infrastructure. The Mega-corridor doesn't need to stop at Boston.

That's a good question as to whether NH would fight Amtrak if Amtrak was paying for it.

Is there any reason to think Amtrak is even interested? The whole driver of this was because MA wants the layover yard.
 
So I’m sure that the info exists somewhere in the thread, but 153 pages are a lot to go through.

I’m wondering: is NSRL 100% reliant on the state’s ability to secure federal aid, or would it be possible for the state to fund the project itself over a very long time?

In general, what is the state capable of for infrastructure improvements in and of itself vs when does it need the feds to step in?
 
So I’m sure that the info exists somewhere in the thread, but 153 pages are a lot to go through.

I’m wondering: is NSRL 100% reliant on the state’s ability to secure federal aid, or would it be possible for the state to fund the project itself over a very long time?

In general, what is the state capable of for infrastructure improvements in and of itself vs when does it need the feds to step in?

Don't think the State would seriously consider doing it unless the Fed/Amtrak are footing most of the bill.
 
I think there is also a situation where, even if they could easily afford it, they wouldn’t forgo federal funding. If they did so, they might be asked uncomfortable questions in the future about why they now need federal assistance.
 
Could we break it up into smaller pieces to get smaller levels of federal funding? Say electrification of the network comes with a "South Station Under" That just happens to be in the correct spot with the portals correctly built all for NSRL?
 
Could we break it up into smaller pieces to get smaller levels of federal funding? Say electrification of the network comes with a "South Station Under" That just happens to be in the correct spot with the portals correctly built all for NSRL?
The NSRL really wouldn't be able to work if it was built piecemeal. The approach to SS under coming from Back Bay requires a tunnel boring machine for a large portion of it. That would be too difficult to remove downtown and it can only travel in one direction (so reversing out the way it came is not an option). The tunnel boring machine used for East Side Access was left abandoned somewhere underneath Grand Central as it was deemed too costly to disassemble for removal. So if you've got the boring machine here, there's really no other option than to dig to the other side of NSRL.

Also, I'm not sure there would really be a huge utility of having south station under act as a stub-end terminal, as it's capacity would be severely limited by only having 2 (maybe 4) platforms and long leads to reverse out as it's heading south or west. It really only works in concept as a thru-running station.
 
The NSRL really wouldn't be able to work if it was built piecemeal. The approach to SS under coming from Back Bay requires a tunnel boring machine for a large portion of it. That would be too difficult to remove downtown and it can only travel in one direction (so reversing out the way it came is not an option). The tunnel boring machine used for East Side Access was left abandoned somewhere underneath Grand Central as it was deemed too costly to disassemble for removal. So if you've got the boring machine here, there's really no other option than to dig to the other side of NSRL.

Also, I'm not sure there would really be a huge utility of having south station under act as a stub-end terminal, as it's capacity would be severely limited by only having 2 (maybe 4) platforms and long leads to reverse out as it's heading south or west. It really only works in concept as a thru-running station.
I believe that there are a couple options for partial build, though, that could be considered. For example, you could bore both tunnels for 4-track. but only build out one of the tunnels initially. Perhaps not include Central Station initially (becomes part of the second tunnel build out). Also I am not sure you have to build all the portals to the south at once. As long as they are planned for they might be staged.
 
I think there is also a situation where, even if they could easily afford it, they wouldn’t forgo federal funding. If they did so, they might be asked uncomfortable questions in the future about why they now need federal assistance.
Agreed. And to be honest, I see the question as kind of meaningless. The Commonwealth could afford to do it without federal support, but that would require a political commitment well beyond what exists. When the feds are kicking in 50% to 80%, it's a much easier sell, but that doesn't mean we can't afford it, just that it's not a priority without the assistance. And more to the point, why would we pay for it if we thought there was a good chance to get some federal funds?
 
The northeast megalopolis is boston-washington dc, all of the nearby cities to Boston that make this up are south/southwest of the city not north.
A more accepted logical Northeast megalopolis count factors all the feeder cities on all sides of it. Think MSA not city limits. Beyond Portland.
Realistically, In 50 years of solid fill, the NEM could stretch past Portland to the north and way past Richmond in the south.
It would make a bunch of sense to get out in front of all that development with some sensible TOD factored in.

With that in mind, the federal government should be asking us for NSRL.
NH and ME should be using their swing state pull to get the NSRL built as part of their state's transportation interests. I'm pretty sure our senators would vote for a legislative package that sends a couple billion to Portland for their end for track improvements and whatever else they need. ALL of New England can't afford parochial interests with as many idiots in Washington as we have. We need to cooperate. New Hampshire's interests should be ours. Ours should be theirs. Blue state taxes continue to build this country. We deserve to see some of our cash once in a while... instead of always picking up the tab.
 
And more to the point, why would we pay for it if we thought there was a good chance to get some federal funds?

Is this true? Driving my initial inquiry is my impression that NSRL feels meme-like these days. The thing that basically everyone wants and has been talked about for over a century but isn’t happening any time soon.

If I had to choose between the project never happening in my lifetime or the state taking over even if that means higher taxes and worse roads, I might choose the latter.
 

Back
Top