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

[F-Line to Dudley]

Quick question unrelated to current discussion: do any of the plans for the NSRL include utilizing it as a backup for any of the subway lines during maintenance/upgrades?

NSRL really isn't aligned for replacing the subway. Yes, it takes a load off Orange between Back Bay and North Station on the heaviest-loading section of the OL. But it more than makes up for that by dumping a heaping ton of new northside passengers onto the Red Line at SS. We're probably going to have to build the Urban Ring as a requirement for how much NSRL will stress the subway at the transfers. Urban Ring is pretty much the only thing that provides a measure of redundancy for the Downtown core by clustering a lot of transfers outside the CBD.

 

[Tallguy]

The T got 3 single-level bids and 3 bi-level bids in the RFP. There was no bi-level requirement.

Rotem offered 2 completely different makes in its bid package. What was stopping Stadler from doing the same? They would've had a superior shot if they covered the bases on either/or single- or bi-level EMU's. They explicitly chose not to bid anything in their catalog other than the sunk-cost Caltrain FrankenKISSes...not even an un-gunked vanilla KISS.

No, there was no "requirement". There is no "requirement" the Boston use New Flyers. Yet I can't recall the last time I rode anything else

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No, there was no "requirement". There is no "requirement" the Boston use New Flyers. Yet I can't recall the last time I rode anything else

Yes, and Stadler has no "requirement" to want to bid anything other than the sunk-cost Caltrain boondoggle, either. That's how the free market works. They chose to make the bid they did.


Now explain how the Rail Vision is supposed to model performance for Regional Rail using something the agency was never once bid...because of the free market. At intercity prices. With a door height that doesn't match any of the full-highs on the system.

 

[bigeman312]

NSRL really isn't aligned for replacing the subway. Yes, it takes a load off Orange between Back Bay and North Station on the heaviest-loading section of the OL. But it more than makes up for that by dumping a heaping ton of new northside passengers onto the Red Line at SS. We're probably going to have to build the Urban Ring as a requirement for how much NSRL will stress the subway at the transfers. Urban Ring is pretty much the only thing that provides a measure of redundancy for the Downtown core by clustering a lot of transfers outside the CBD.

I agree with all of this, but don’t forget the Green Line! I’ve ridden the Green Line to North Station from Kenmore and points west (like Newton) many times. Take the Green Line from North Station to Riverside after a Celtics game and watch how far people with Celtics jerseys ride. Take the Green Line in the opposite direction after a Red Sox game to see a similar phenomenon play out. In a NSRL world, many of those are Regional Rail riders.

But I agree with your thesis, that it does little to balance loads off of the subway system in general. Just a segment of Green and Orange riders.

 

[Draw7]

It’s a very interesting question whether NSRL or Urban Ring should be built first, given that it seems unlikely that resources to construct both would be made available in our lifetimes.

On one hand, the fragility and lack of transfer points outside of downtown of the current rapid transit network is painfully clear. Until that is changed, it would seem that the system will remain very vulnerable to service disruptions and also of limited utility for trips outside the core. Those concerns would favor Urban Ring.

On the other hand, the NRSL with the accompanying frequent through-running regional rail service provides huge regional connectivity and could also help provide the current rapid network with some degree of redundancy by providing a good alternative service for portions OL and RL.

Is there a middle ground where NSRL gets built and limited enhancements to the rapid transit network are made (BL-RL Connector, GL to Porter, etc…)? Where is the best low-hanging fruit?

Another question is how much of an issue will RL and OL capacity be? Right now, ridership is depressed. No doubt it’ll recover to some extent in the next few years, but no one can know exactly how much it’ll recover. Red-Blue Connector should be done no matter what happens to the commuter rail. Red-Blue, GL to Porter. Would those be enough to get started on NSRL?

 

[Charlie_mta]

My vote would be to build NSRL first, and the Urban Ring second.

NSRL would provide greater relief to clogged commuter expressways and roads, drawing road commuters to commuter rail because NSRL would provide better through connectivity than the current stub-end commuter rail lines ending at North or South Station. Rail commuters would have a much greater one-seat ride opportunities across the metro area.

 

[CheapLeak]

Would a modified Stadler KISS with doors at the mid-level sections be a viable EMU to run? I’m not really caught up on why caltrain’s were so bad.

 

[BostonObserver]

I assume the urban ring could be built in segments with buses running on surface streets and tunnels. Later when it's all tunnel switch to heavy or light rail. What segments should come first?

 

[CheapLeak]

I assume the urban ring could be built in segments with buses running on surface streets and tunnels. Later when it's all tunnel switch to heavy or light rail. What segments should come first?

I don’t know much, but the B branch to ruggles section would probably be sped up the most.

 

[fattony]

I assume the urban ring could be built in segments with buses running on surface streets and tunnels. Later when it's all tunnel switch to heavy or light rail. What segments should come first?

IMO, Everett to Sullian to Kendall is low hanging fruit

 

[TheRatmeister]

My vote would be to build NSRL first, and the Urban Ring second.

NSRL would provide greater relief to clogged commuter expressways and roads, drawing road commuters to commuter rail because NSRL would provide better through connectivity than the current stub-end commuter rail lines ending at North or South Station. Rail commuters would have a much greater one-seat ride opportunities across the metro area.

How much improvement would come from electrification and higher frequencies, and how much would come from NSRL? Cities like London or New York will show you that you absolutely can operate good, high frequency regional rail networks with stub-end terminals. London's Fenchurch St for example sees up to 20 tph during peak periods with 4 terminal platforms. (For reference South Station currently has 13 platforms.)

Therefore the question turns to journeys made through the city. Would there be enough trips made from Lynn to Natick or from Haverhill to Providence that would justify the priority of NSRL over the Urban Ring and ridership that would potentially make in the busiest line on the system?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Would a modified Stadler KISS with doors at the mid-level sections be a viable EMU to run? I’m not really caught up on why caltrain’s were so bad.

The source KISS that Caltrain was bid had the high-level boarding compatibility settled. The overcustomization was that Caltrain needed both high-boarding and low-boarding doors because of their gobbledygook agency timeframes for actually implementing level boarding on the system (as is none of their stations are high-level, and none figure to be any time soon). Euroland has KISSes that board low-ish, but not at the 8-inch interface that Caltrain needed...and not dual interfaces. So a great deal of overcustomization was put in to get the dual door interface, and then they ran into numerous problems getting a working bridge plate interface with the 8-inch platforms because the floor heights were a *little* too high. They couldn't get a bridge plate long enough to meet ADA slope without moving a lot of components on the underside of the carbody. The whole design process ran way late and way overbudget, and the costs were passed on to Caltrain. The final versions work, but they were a textbook example of overcustomization hurting a procurement.

The T has no need for the lower-level doors. We're moving towards a uniformly full-high system and have no spec 8-inch platforms (our out-of-compliance lows are just bare pavement not even raised the 8 inches above the railhead), so the lower-level doors are absolutely useless to us for any semblance of ADA compliance. Stadler could've bid a stock Euro KISS with high doors only and more seating on the lower level instead of the doors, and offered standard door traps for covering our butts on any platforms that aren't raised by the time EMU's start trawling the system. They didn't...they made us try to swallow the Caltrain version, useless low-boarding doors and all. They'll work on our system with no modification, but the low-level doors aren't for accessibility and become fully vestigial on any line that achieves 100% full-highs. It was a sign that the manufacturer was not serious about bidding on the T's RFP, and were mainly interested in recouping the sunk cost of the Caltrain mods with some more unit sales for their troubles.

 

[BosMaineiac]

My vote would be to build NSRL first, and the Urban Ring second.

I assume the urban ring could be built in segments with buses running on surface streets and tunnels. Later when it's all tunnel switch to heavy or light rail. What segments should come first?

I agree that the Urban Ring will certainly be built in segments. I think we’ll see some form of an Urban Ring much sooner than the NSRL, but a full on loop including TWT bore (+ other rail southeast quadrant fantasies) is something I don’t see happening for a long time. I think there would be more motivation from the State and plenty of not so transit-savvy individuals for NSRL because of the benefits it brings to people outside of Boston proper.

In terms of Urban Ring segment phasing, I think we really need to see many more bus lanes being built in the near term to start forming the basis of the system. I think a good LRT first phase would be a green line branch originating from Brattle Loop and terminating at West Station via the grand junction. The next phase could be a new “Gold Line” circumferential LRT from West Station-Chelsea via GJ. Then you’ve pretty much created an LRT northwest half and bus southeast half. That would go a long way in building eventual momentum for some of the more crazy southeast LRT options.

I think we’re multi—multi decades away from realizing this, and I hope NSRL is mixed in somewhere within those decades. However, as Ratmeister points to the benefits of, the #1 priority needs to be commuter rail electrification and frequent service before we even seriously talk about getting the Link done.

 

[Draw7]

It’s hard to think of any project that can be as transformative and would use funds as efficiently as commuter rail electrification.

 

[bigeman312]

I assume the urban ring could be built in segments with buses running on surface streets and tunnels. Later when it's all tunnel switch to heavy or light rail. What segments should come first?

We’re veering off-topic, but I’ll bite. The first segment of the Urban Ring has already been built. The Silver Line Gateway busway in Chelsea. I think that’s an important fact because it shows that we can eat this project one manageable step at a time. Now we just need to take the next step.

In terms of what the next steps should be? In my opinion, it looks a bit like:

1. Implement the bus network redesign, which includes some better circumferal routing.
2. Extend the busway from Chelsea Station to 2nd Street. Re-route the T104 to utilize the full busway. That gives you an Airport <-> Malden Center route with a significant portion on busway.
3. Rebuild Broadway and Alford St between Everett Square and Sullivan with Columbus-Ave-style center-running bus lanes. Extend the SL3 to Sullivan via the extended busway, 2nd St, Spring St, Chelsea St, and the new center-running-lanes on Broadway and Alford St. Then you have overlapping South Station to Sullivan and Airport to Malden Center routes, with significant amounts of BRT elements.

That’s all very reasonable and doable in the next few years.

 

[Teban54]

Hot take: I really don't think we will see a 6-mile deep bored Urban Ring tunnel just for the western half (Nubian to Sullivan) - if we go for 100% grade separation - either before or after another 2-mile deep-bored tunnel that's NSRL, which is projected to cost $8-18 billion (2028 USD).

Never mind adding another 5 miles for the eastern half (Nubian to Airport, which does not yet include another Chelsea Creek crossing).

 

[Teban54]

It’s a very interesting question whether NSRL or Urban Ring should be built first, given that it seems unlikely that resources to construct both would be made available in our lifetimes.

Meanwhile, I think we shouldn't forget a third option: Green Line Reconfiguration.

GLR is cost-effective. Yes, all three key pieces (Back Bay to Pleasant St Incline reactivation, D-E connector via Huntington subway, and extending Seaport Transitway west) are subways, but they can be built mostly with cut-and-cover, in places where there are likely no utilities (under the Huntington Ave reservation), and/or where their impacts to nearby streets are reduced (Marginal Rd). @Riverside did an analysis here and found that the cost of full GLR - both the three key parts, and all the add-ons like Needham, Nubian, Chelsea, Grand Junction, even BU Bridge to Fenway - is slightly lower than NSRL despite much more mileage.

I'd also argue the benefits of GL Reconfiguration are complementary to both NSRL (and Regional Rail in general) and Urban Ring:

• GLR adds a whole other trunk to South Station for all the additional passengers NSRL will dump there (especially the southern half), with one-seat rides to Back Bay, Longwood Medical Area and Seaport. (It also offers a more efficient North Station-LMA ride than today.)
  • In fact, it massively improves network resiliency and pluricentricity to the south of downtown. You can even argue it does this better than southside Urban Ring.
• GLR also allows the capacity upgrade that's necessary to incorporate a GL Needham branch, which itself is necessary for frequent Regional Rail for other lines on NEC.
• As for Urban Ring, much of the initial efforts can also be incorporated into GLR as an initial stage, especially to the north (Grand Junction branch and Chelsea branch are both popular proposals), until a full Urban Ring service pattern is established.

The only disadvantage against it is that GLR is not nearly as widely recognized as NSRL and Urban Ring. But @Riverside is working on addressing that right now.

 

[Riverside]

We’re veering off-topic, but I’ll bite. The first segment of the Urban Ring has already been built. The Silver Line Gateway busway in Chelsea. I think that’s an important fact because it shows that we can eat this project one manageable step at a time. Now we just need to take the next step.

In terms of what the next steps should be? In my opinion, it looks a bit like:

1. Implement the bus network redesign, which includes some better circumferal routing.
2. Extend the busway from Chelsea Station to 2nd Street. Re-route the T104 to utilize the full busway. That gives you an Airport <-> Malden Center route with a significant portion on busway.
3. Rebuild Broadway and Alford St between Everett Square and Sullivan with Columbus-Ave-style center-running bus lanes. Extend the SL3 to Sullivan via the extended busway, 2nd St, Spring St, Chelsea St, and the new center-running-lanes on Broadway and Alford St. Then you have overlapping South Station to Sullivan and Airport to Malden Center routes, with significant amounts of BRT elements.

That’s all very reasonable and doable in the next few years.

I agree with all this, 100%.

Ironically though, in the long term, I don’t believe there should be a continuous Cambridge <> Sullivan <> Chelsea <> Airport service. Sullivan <> Airport via Chelsea is lengthy and roundabout enough that Orange + Blue is gonna be too competitive.

Chelsea <> Kendall is worthwhile for the OSR to Kendall, and Chelsea <> Airport for the same reason. If you want to have a Sullivan <> Airport service pinging back and forth, that seems reasonable to pick up local riders transferring to Orange/Blue, but I don’t see that as a load-bearing service, nor do I see it redirecting any Orange + Blue transfers away from State.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Hot take: I really don't think we will see a 6-mile deep bored Urban Ring tunnel just for the western half (Nubian to Sullivan) - if we go for 100% grade separation - either before or after another 2-mile deep-bored tunnel that's NSRL, which is projected to cost $8-18 billion (2028 USD).

Never mind adding another 5 miles for the eastern half (Nubian to Airport, which does not yet include another Chelsea Creek crossing).

Just to compare some elements for the two projects and why I don't think either is any less realistic than the other, here's a table. For the NSRL I'll be considering the quad-tracked central artery option because I think it's the most likely, partially due to politics reasons and the fact that the other alternatives completely exclude the Old Colony & Fairmount lines and would, as far as I can tell, basically not provide for Amtrak throughrunning whatsoever. I'll be comparing it to the "Phase 1" of an Urban Ring project that roughly follows the route of the 66 bus, the most popular crosstown route, and includes a full tunnel under Lower Allston rather than an elevated segment, which I think is possible.

Project Aspect	NSRL	Urban Ring (Subway Line version)
# of Stations	3 (North Station Under, "Central Station" (Aquarium), South Station Under	10-12 (Harvard Stadium, Lower Allston, optional West Station, Harvard Ave, Coolidge Corner, Longwood Medical Area, MassArt/Wentworth, Ruggles, Nubian, BUMC, optional Widett Circle, Andrew)
Size of Stations	Platforms ~800-850ft long, 4 tracks	Platforms ~ 275ft long, 2 tracks
General complexity of project (Where is the tunnel, what do the portals look like, etc)	Fairly complicated junction on the northern end, I suspect that's the main cause of the $1bn "Portals" pricetag. Right under downtown ($$$)	Potential train spaghetti at Widett Circle, but besides that it's a pretty straightforward route.
Length/type of Tunnel	~3.5mi twin bore	~4.5mi twin or single bore+1mi Nubian-Andrew mixed C&C/Surface/Elevated

Given these project characteristics, while this is speculation, I do not believe the Urban ring would be the more expensive of the two projects. Even if the NSRL was done as cheaply as possible (2 tracks under Central single bore, I think the best that could be reasonably hoped for is price-competitiveness. So, assuming these projects cost a similar amount, which serves more people? I would say that without hesitation it's the urban ring. Unless we truly believe that as many people would ride between the Northern CR stations and Southern CR stations as currently ride the entire CR network, and that most of these people would not just be using the line for a 1 seat ride from their suburb to their destination in Boston, I don't think it's even close.

 

[Teban54]

Just to compare some elements for the two projects and why I don't think either is any less realistic than the other, here's a table. For the NSRL I'll be considering the quad-tracked central artery option because I think it's the most likely, partially due to politics reasons and the fact that the other alternatives completely exclude the Old Colony & Fairmount lines and would, as far as I can tell, basically not provide for Amtrak throughrunning whatsoever. I'll be comparing it to the "Phase 1" of an Urban Ring project that roughly follows the route of the 66 bus, the most popular crosstown route, and includes a full tunnel under Lower Allston rather than an elevated segment, which I think is possible.

Project Aspect	NSRL	Urban Ring (Subway Line version)
# of Stations	3 (North Station Under, "Central Station" (Aquarium), South Station Under	10-12 (Harvard Stadium, Lower Allston, optional West Station, Harvard Ave, Coolidge Corner, Longwood Medical Area, MassArt/Wentworth, Ruggles, Nubian, BUMC, optional Widett Circle, Andrew)
Size of Stations	Platforms ~800-850ft long, 4 tracks	Platforms ~ 275ft long, 2 tracks
General complexity of project (Where is the tunnel, what do the portals look like, etc)	Fairly complicated junction on the northern end, I suspect that's the main cause of the $1bn "Portals" pricetag. Right under downtown ($$$)	Potential train spaghetti at Widett Circle, but besides that it's a pretty straightforward route.
Length/type of Tunnel	~3.5mi twin bore	~4.5mi twin or single bore+1mi Nubian-Andrew mixed C&C/Surface/Elevated

Given these project characteristics, while this is speculation, I do not believe the Urban ring would be the more expensive of the two projects. Even if the NSRL was done as cheaply as possible (2 tracks under Central single bore, I think the best that could be reasonably hoped for is price-competitiveness. So, assuming these projects cost a similar amount, which serves more people? I would say that without hesitation it's the urban ring. Unless we truly believe that as many people would ride between the Northern CR stations and Southern CR stations as currently ride the entire CR network, and that most of these people would not just be using the line for a 1 seat ride from their suburb to their destination in Boston, I don't think it's even close.

• Even a half Urban Ring won't be complete in its usefulness until it reaches the northside Orange Line, most likely Sullivan. Any subway alignment to reach there, especially one through Harvard immediately adds another 2 miles of deep-bored tunnel.
  • In fact, I'd argue the lag from Nubian to southside Red Line would be the choice to dump - the earlier Urban Ring study proposed exactly an Assembly-Nubian subway.
  • This also raises the question of whether it's fair to compare part of an Urban Ring project to the entire NSRL project, and how the Urban Ring parts can even be defined in the first place.
• 275 ft platforms are not long enough by today's construction standards. For light rail, GLX's specs called for 300 ft, so they're either built this way (Lechmere is about 350) or have provisions to extend them. For heavy rail, Malden Center's platform is about 410 ft, and Fields Corner 430 ft. Not a magnitude of difference, but it reduces the difference from NSRL to some extent.
• Disregarding the question of whether tunneling under downtown immediately implies $$$ when the ROW is very wide, if we assume that's true, then tunneling through Longwood will be even tougher. The hospital buildings are almost as tall and roads are much narrower, sometimes 35' between sidewalks.
• I'm not sure if a standard flying junction blows up cost dramatically, especially when it can be done outside of downtown. But even if we make that assumption, there's also a need for a flying junction to both Harvard and Kendall. It's fine if you want to include Harvard and deal with the $$$ that comes with it, but any Urban Ring proposal that completely avoids Kendall is likely a no-go.
• I also think you're underselling NSRL's usefulness. It's almost never about allowing Providence-Lowell OSRs, but rather, improving efficiency (with through-running trains), access to multiple downtown destinations and subway connections, transfers for regional travels, and perhaps most important of all, allowing much higher frequencies on all trunks such as <=10 min Fairmount, 15-30 min Providence, and even allowing many urban segments (Fairmount Line, Newtons, Waltham, North Shore) to receive rapid-transit-level service.

This is by no means a blind NSRL praise (which requires significant electrification to get there) or a blind subway-Urban-Ring critique, but I do think the impacts of NSRL, Urban Ring and GLR across the whole system are of similar magnitudes, and disagree that one is "not even close" to the others.