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

[JeffDowntown]

The official talking points on NSRL have been crap for about 20 years now, and don't capture the purpose-and-need well at all. Lots and lots about "One-mile gap!" as if one-seat to North Station from the south and South Station/Back Bay from the north is the be-all/end-all when people can't perceive not taking the subway to get around the CBD, and lots of very muddled prognostications about run-thru like "Worcester to Rockport! Fitchburg to Greenbush!" as if there's gigantic end-to-ender audiences hiding under a rock. Blame the loud Dukakis/Weld/Salvucci lobby for that messaging FAIL, as those old fossils simply can't perceive of a system that operates differently from the 9-5'er, suburban park-and-rides to CBD status quo. And then there's the equally loud Seth Moultons of the world who are all "Stub-end ops is icky and 19th century!" as if modernization can't be done without an $8B tunnel, when that just flies over the heads of nearly all constituents who can't even perceive what ops reform even looks like much less how it benefits them and whose only concrete reference point for the run-thru revolution is...SEPTA, which slashed its system to near-uselessness in coverage and frequency when it opened its expensive run-thru tunnel and saw ridership crater for 40 years as a result.

Not once are "Frequencies! Frequencies! Frequencies!" mentioned. Not once are "new intermediate-to-intermediate origins and destinations expanding the job market vs. housing options" mentioned. Not once is "new means of car-free or car-few living and working" mentioned, or "cascading wave of suburban connecting transit expansion" mentioned. Not once is "cascading wave of reconfigured downtown and radial transit to redistribute (over)loads" mentioned. Not once is "traffic relief for our daily living-hell commutes" mentioned. Not once is "new means of easy-grab non-work trips" mentioned. Not once is "expansion of the intercity map to new destinations in Northern New England and new trans-region access to an expanded Eastern Seaboard network" mentioned. Not once is "if you think Regional Rail as proposed is gonna be fan-fucking-tastic, just wait till you see what's in store for the encore!" mentioned.

No. It's all "same park-and-ride, same need to check-check-check that paper schedule, different landing spot in the CBD (where you still probably have to take a subway line or two to get to final destination), stars-align chance you might get to live in a different suburb or work in a different Gateway City if the right pair-match happens to come to your line (and if not...status quo)". And that's a shitty, shitty whiff on the messaging. I absolutely believe that NSRL is the most transformative transportation project the entirety of New England can mount. Easily. The East-West comparison is silly-trivial compared to the coattails of the Link. Like...shouldn't even be in the same universe. One is an incremental and lower-impact enhancement opening up of beneficial out-of-region opportunities several times a day, one is knitting Greater Boston (and out-of-region destinations) together exponentially tighter than ever before all day long at maximal economic impact. But we're reduced it to an unfavorable direct comparison because no one in a seat of power can @#$% explain what NSRL does. They can explain what East-West does more or less. They can't with NSRL. Therefore even with cavernous differences in scope and impact, NSRL pans out unfavorable.

It's not because the project itself is unfavorable. It's because nobody can give a straight answer on what it bloody is and bloody does. A purpose-and-need statement is the #1 step to mounting any initiative. And despite all the information out there (especially with the fast-rising Regional Rail talking points), those in leadership positions simply cannot get their stories straight enough to make a case. It's a colossal failure with a whole generation (or two or three) of Massachusetts leaders. And it's probably not going to get better until we clean house of all the old fossils like Lynch and the misguided Moultons and get some people who can straight-talk the run-thru and capacity-increase benefits like the Regional Rail advocacy has been able to straight-talk the general ops reform benefits. It's still a #1 transformational project target; that's never changed. The messaging needs to change, and who's talking about it clearly needs to very much change.

To understand all this, look at European cities with effective, frequent regional rail. Almost all have a cross CBD tunnel system used by multiple regional lines.

The Elizabeth Line in London is effectively a new cross CBD system connection of multiple regional rail terminuses West and East of London -- two years after opening it is already the highest usage line in the entire London system! 220 million unique trips in 23/24. The usage realigned that quickly.

 

[OldColony]

I'd also add replacing the Needham Line with the OL and a branch of the GL, and maybe Cape Cod Commuter Rail, but SCR has kinda screwed that one up.

I'd definitely add double-tracking the Old Colony main between South Bay and Braintree (a big ticket item) and a Buzzards Bay commuter rail extension from Middleborough (a relatively light lift). The capital cost per new passenger for Buzzards Bay was projected as a fraction of SCR phase 1. Regardless if SCR phase 2 via Stoughton gets built (it should, but good luck on that), the Old Colony main capacity expansion is needed.

 

[Riverside]

The official talking points on NSRL have been crap for about 20 years now, and don't capture the purpose-and-need well at all. Lots and lots about "One-mile gap!" as if one-seat to North Station from the south and South Station/Back Bay from the north is the be-all/end-all when people can't perceive not taking the subway to get around the CBD, and lots of very muddled prognostications about run-thru like "Worcester to Rockport! Fitchburg to Greenbush!" as if there's gigantic end-to-ender audiences hiding under a rock. Blame the loud Dukakis/Weld/Salvucci lobby for that messaging FAIL, as those old fossils simply can't perceive of a system that operates differently from the 9-5'er, suburban park-and-rides to CBD status quo. And then there's the equally loud Seth Moultons of the world who are all "Stub-end ops is icky and 19th century!" as if modernization can't be done without an $8B tunnel, when that just flies over the heads of nearly all constituents who can't even perceive what ops reform even looks like much less how it benefits them and whose only concrete reference point for the run-thru revolution is...SEPTA, which slashed its system to near-uselessness in coverage and frequency when it opened its expensive run-thru tunnel and saw ridership crater for 40 years as a result.

Not once are "Frequencies! Frequencies! Frequencies!" mentioned. Not once are "new intermediate-to-intermediate origins and destinations expanding the job market vs. housing options" mentioned. Not once is "new means of car-free or car-few living and working" mentioned, or "cascading wave of suburban connecting transit expansion" mentioned. Not once is "cascading wave of reconfigured downtown and radial transit to redistribute (over)loads" mentioned. Not once is "traffic relief for our daily living-hell commutes" mentioned. Not once is "new means of easy-grab non-work trips" mentioned. Not once is "expansion of the intercity map to new destinations in Northern New England and new trans-region access to an expanded Eastern Seaboard network" mentioned. Not once is "if you think Regional Rail as proposed is gonna be fan-fucking-tastic, just wait till you see what's in store for the encore!" mentioned.

No. It's all "same park-and-ride, same need to check-check-check that paper schedule, different landing spot in the CBD (where you still probably have to take a subway line or two to get to final destination), stars-align chance you might get to live in a different suburb or work in a different Gateway City if the right pair-match happens to come to your line (and if not...status quo)". And that's a shitty, shitty whiff on the messaging. I absolutely believe that NSRL is the most transformative transportation project the entirety of New England can mount. Easily. The East-West comparison is silly-trivial compared to the coattails of the Link. Like...shouldn't even be in the same universe. One is an incremental and lower-impact enhancement opening up of beneficial out-of-region opportunities several times a day, one is knitting Greater Boston (and out-of-region destinations) together exponentially tighter than ever before all day long at maximal economic impact. But we're reduced it to an unfavorable direct comparison because no one in a seat of power can @#$% explain what NSRL does. They can explain what East-West does more or less. They can't with NSRL. Therefore even with cavernous differences in scope and impact, NSRL pans out unfavorable.

It's not because the project itself is unfavorable. It's because nobody can give a straight answer on what it bloody is and bloody does. A purpose-and-need statement is the #1 step to mounting any initiative. And despite all the information out there (especially with the fast-rising Regional Rail talking points), those in leadership positions simply cannot get their stories straight enough to make a case. It's a colossal failure with a whole generation (or two or three) of Massachusetts leaders. And it's probably not going to get better until we clean house of all the old fossils like Lynch and the misguided Moultons and get some people who can straight-talk the run-thru and capacity-increase benefits like the Regional Rail advocacy has been able to straight-talk the general ops reform benefits. It's still a #1 transformational project target; that's never changed. The messaging needs to change, and who's talking about it clearly needs to very much change.

Well put. (I know you know I know all of what you've said, but it's good for someone to aptly resummarize it for those who are new to the convo.)

The distinction I would make (perhaps splitting hairs) is that NSRL may be the most transformative transportation project in New England, but that doesn't make it the most important. Particularly within a Federal funding context where we're we're competing with projects, "importance" takes on a different meaning. In terms of priorities, it's cart-before-the-horse: the first step is Regional Rail; the second step is Electrified Regional Rail; the third step is the NSRL. Lack of messaging notwithstanding, an NSRL proposal that doesn't incorporate systemwide/sufficient electrification wouldn't pass muster on closer examination from a policy/planning perspective.

To understand all this, look at European cities with effective, frequent regional rail. Almost all have a cross CBD tunnel system used by multiple regional lines.

The Elizabeth Line in London is effectively a new cross CBD system connection of multiple regional rail terminuses West and East of London -- two years after opening it is already the highest usage line in the entire London system! 220 million unique trips in 23/24. The usage realigned that quickly.

In general I agree with you. That being said, we should be careful with the Elizabeth Line comparison -- the difference in scale is enormous. Crossrail had multiple objectives:

• Relieve significant overcrowding on the Central Line
• Improve access to Canary Wharf, a new Seaport-esque CBD
• Faster connection to Heathrow
• Crosstown service and diversion of mainline rail passengers away from Tube transfers

On paper, some of this seems similar to NSRL. But there are pretty big differences. For example, the two mainline terminals that Crossrail was built between -- Liverpool St and Paddington -- are four miles apart. In a Boston context, this would be equivalent to Roxbury Crossing <> Maverick, or South Station <> Wellington. (Further than South Station <> Harvard). Canary Wharf is a full three miles away from Liverpool Street, in the opposite direction; that makes it equivalent to Longwood, not the Seaport.

The journey time improvements are also pretty remarkable (especially for journeys to Canary Wharf):

All of which is to say, I would suggest that the Elizabeth Line's success should first be attributed to its enormous scale.

(Because I can't help myself, below is a sketch of what a project of vaguely similar scale might look like in Boston. Very off the cuff, really just for illustrative purposes. Much longer greenfield tunnel, substantially more direct mainline station placement in satellite CBDs of Longwood and Seaport, close hewing to our "Central Line" [Orange Line], service to the airport. This would be overbuilt for Boston, IMO, but again my point is just that Crossrail was so much bigger than NSRL.)

 

[ritchiew]

In general I agree with you. That being said, we should be careful with the Elizabeth Line comparison -- the difference in scale is enormous. Crossrail had multiple objectives:

Yeah, this seems right. The Elizabeth Line is a good-but-not-perfect comparison.

Here's a couple related articles, if anyone is interested. They describe two types of these cross-city regional rail tunnels. There are long ones with lots of new stations (like Elizabeth or RER Line A), which are much more expensive but have bigger impacts. They act as whole new express metro lines across long parts of the urban core, and tackle a lot more goals, as you point out. Their impacts can be massive. The other category is short tunnels between historic termini to allow through running (the author points to RER Line C). These tend to get less ridership than the first category, but are also a lot cheaper and still incredibly valuable. Obviously this is actually a spectrum, and they describe NSRL as "mixed." But really NSRL would be on the smaller side. I do think it would be transformative for the region. And saying NSRL would be something less than Elizabeth seems fine because that's a really high bar.

How Paris typifies two models for cross-city commuter train lines

Since World War Two, some cities have sought to extend rapid transit into their suburbs by leveraging legacy commuter rail…

www.citymonitor.ai

What the RER A vs. C Contrast Means for New York Regional Rail

A few weeks ago, I published a piece in City Metric contrasting two ways of through-running regional rail, which I identify with the RER A and C in Paris. The RER C (or Thameslink) way is to minima…

pedestrianobservations.com

 

[Riverside]

And saying NSRL would be something less than Elizabeth seems fine because that's a really high bar.

Well said.

(And @JeffDowntown, sorry if this came across as “piling on” — you’re totally right that the success of the Elizabeth Line is relevant; I just wanted to add some color.)

I am pondering whether LA Regional Connector might make for a better comparison. Yes, it’s light rail, but LA’s light rail lines are bonkers: the E runs roughly 15 miles to Santa Monica, and the A runs 20 miles south to Long Beach and 20 miles east to Azusa — that would be like running from Framingham to fricking Manchester-by-the-Sea.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Well said.

(And @JeffDowntown, sorry if this came across as “piling on” — you’re totally right that the success of the Elizabeth Line is relevant; I just wanted to add some color.)

I am pondering whether LA Regional Connector might make for a better comparison. Yes, it’s light rail, but LA’s light rail lines are bonkers: the E runs roughly 15 miles to Santa Monica, and the A runs 20 miles south to Long Beach and 20 miles east to Azusa — that would be like running from Framingham to fricking Manchester-by-the-Sea.

I completely understand that comparisons are never perfect. My Elizabeth Line comparison was mostly to point out how quickly transformative service gets adopted. My understanding is that 2 years after opening ridership is running well ahead of transit planner projections. All of the top ridership stations in the London system are now on the Elizabeth Line.

Also as we make the comparisons (wherever), most of the cities we are talking about are MUCH LARGER than Boston. so a mile in Boston is more like 3 miles in London....

On the 4 points for why the Elizabeth Line was built, at least 2 have relevance to NSRL:
Crosstown service to eliminate subway transfers.
Some relief of crowding on the Red Line (due to the above).

We miss serving the Airport and Seaport districts (unless NSRL starts looking like the Big Dig with a new harbor tunnel as diagramed above (which it clearly could, but likely won't).

 

[Riverside]

Yeah, this seems right. The Elizabeth Line is a good-but-not-perfect comparison.

Here's a couple related articles, if anyone is interested. He describes two types of these cross-city regional rail tunnels. There are long ones with lots of new stations (like Elizabeth or RER Line A), which are much more expensive but have bigger impacts. They act as whole new express metro lines across long parts of the urban core, and tackle a lot more goals, as you point out. Their impacts can be massive. The other category is short tunnels between historic termini to allow through running (he points to RER Line C). These tend to get less ridership than the first category, but are also a lot cheaper and still incredibly valuable. Obviously this is actually a spectrum, and he describes NSRL as "mixed." But really NSRL would be on the smaller side. I do think it would be transformative for the region. And saying NSRL would be something less than Elizabeth seems fine because that's a really high bar.

How Paris typifies two models for cross-city commuter train lines

Since World War Two, some cities have sought to extend rapid transit into their suburbs by leveraging legacy commuter rail…

www.citymonitor.ai

What the RER A vs. C Contrast Means for New York Regional Rail

A few weeks ago, I published a piece in City Metric contrasting two ways of through-running regional rail, which I identify with the RER A and C in Paris. The RER C (or Thameslink) way is to minima…

pedestrianobservations.com

Circling back, I was able to read Alon's arguments in more detail, and yes I agree with their framing of RER A vs RER C. (IIRC, Alon's pronouns are they/them.)

The question is how transformative NSRL would be, and I wish I were as confident as F-Line that it would be so earth-shattering. Maybe I just having sifted through the NSRL numbers enough, but I'm just not sold that it would be transformative at that scale. IMO, on the face of it, NSRL pretty straightforwardly resembles RER C more than RER A.

I know I've said this before, but (and I need to go check the latest numbers on this, but I think it's still broadly true) Northside Commuter Rail ridership is roughly equivalent to the ridership of the surface segment of the B Line alone. (Or equivalent roughly to the combined ridership of the 28 and 116/117.) Building a Comm Ave subway would improve transit for as many existing riders, at a fraction of the cost. So that leaves the question of how many new riders could be added (taking cars off the road) and how many Orange Line riders would see improvement due to less crowding. I dunno.

~~~

If I might suggest an alternate framing: "Build the Indigo Express from Dorchester to Chelsea [or Lynn]". That seems like it could be a simple enough narrative, but would still bake in a lot of the subtler benefits discussed here: subway-like frequency, crosstown connections, new transit to new areas.

(I'm struck by my apparent self-contradiction where I first suggest that the broad NSRL won't have a strong enough impact, but then go and suggest that a narrower focus on Fairmount + Chelsea would somehow be better. Maybe I'm saying that, for those who want to continue advocating for NSRL, the "Indigo Express" narrative seems better to me? While still maintaining that NSRL won't be high on my personal advocacy list? I dunno. Maybe I'm just being annoyingly inconsistent. )

EDIT: Ignore the Indigo Express idea -- on further consideration, I don't think it works.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Circling back, I was able to read Alon's arguments in more detail, and yes I agree with their framing of RER A vs RER C. (IIRC, Alon's pronouns are they/them.)

The question is how transformative NSRL would be, and I wish I were as confident as F-Line that it would be so earth-shattering. Maybe I just having sifted through the NSRL numbers enough, but I'm just not sold that it would be transformative at that scale. IMO, on the face of it, NSRL pretty straightforwardly resembles RER C more than RER A.

I know I've said this before, but (and I need to go check the latest numbers on this, but I think it's still broadly true) Northside Commuter Rail ridership is roughly equivalent to the ridership of the surface segment of the B Line alone. (Or equivalent roughly to the combined ridership of the 28 and 116/117.) Building a Comm Ave subway would improve transit for as many existing riders, at a fraction of the cost. So that leaves the question of how many new riders could be added (taking cars off the road) and how many Orange Line riders would see improvement due to less crowding. I dunno.

~~~

If I might suggest an alternate framing: "Build the Indigo Express from Dorchester to Chelsea [or Lynn]". That seems like it could be a simple enough narrative, but would still bake in a lot of the subtler benefits discussed here: subway-like frequency, crosstown connections, new transit to new areas.

(I'm struck by my apparent self-contradiction where I first suggest that the broad NSRL won't have a strong enough impact, but then go and suggest that a narrower focus on Fairmount + Chelsea would somehow be better. Maybe I'm saying that, for those who want to continue advocating for NSRL, the "Indigo Express" narrative seems better to me? While still maintaining that NSRL won't be high on my personal advocacy list? I dunno. Maybe I'm just being annoyingly inconsistent. )

Ridership figures from the 2003 DEIR Executive Summary for each of the study Alternatives. This is without substantial Regional Rail-ification of the off-peaks, which would obviously shift everything for each Alt. higher.

It's hella transformative.

 

[ritchiew]

(IIRC, Alon's pronouns are they/them.)

Shoot, I think I knew that but forgot. I edited my post. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[FK4]

The official talking points on NSRL have been crap for about 20 years now, and don't capture the purpose-and-need well at all. Lots and lots about "One-mile gap!" as if one-seat to North Station from the south and South Station/Back Bay from the north is the be-all/end-all when people can't perceive not taking the subway to get around the CBD, and lots of very muddled prognostications about run-thru like "Worcester to Rockport! Fitchburg to Greenbush!" as if there's gigantic end-to-ender audiences hiding under a rock. Blame the loud Dukakis/Weld/Salvucci lobby for that messaging FAIL, as those old fossils simply can't perceive of a system that operates differently from the 9-5'er, suburban park-and-rides to CBD status quo. And then there's the equally loud Seth Moultons of the world who are all "Stub-end ops is icky and 19th century!" as if modernization can't be done without an $8B tunnel, when that just flies over the heads of nearly all constituents who can't even perceive what ops reform even looks like much less how it benefits them and whose only concrete reference point for the run-thru revolution is...SEPTA, which slashed its system to near-uselessness in coverage and frequency when it opened its expensive run-thru tunnel and saw ridership crater for 40 years as a result.

Not once are "Frequencies! Frequencies! Frequencies!" mentioned. Not once are "new intermediate-to-intermediate origins and destinations expanding the job market vs. housing options" mentioned. Not once is "new means of car-free or car-few living and working" mentioned, or "cascading wave of suburban connecting transit expansion" mentioned. Not once is "cascading wave of reconfigured downtown and radial transit to redistribute (over)loads" mentioned. Not once is "traffic relief for our daily living-hell commutes" mentioned. Not once is "new means of easy-grab non-work trips" mentioned. Not once is "expansion of the intercity map to new destinations in Northern New England and new trans-region access to an expanded Eastern Seaboard network" mentioned. Not once is "if you think Regional Rail as proposed is gonna be fan-fucking-tastic, just wait till you see what's in store for the encore!" mentioned.

No. It's all "same park-and-ride, same need to check-check-check that paper schedule, different landing spot in the CBD (where you still probably have to take a subway line or two to get to final destination), stars-align chance you might get to live in a different suburb or work in a different Gateway City if the right pair-match happens to come to your line (and if not...status quo)". And that's a shitty, shitty whiff on the messaging. I absolutely believe that NSRL is the most transformative transportation project the entirety of New England can mount. Easily. The East-West comparison is silly-trivial compared to the coattails of the Link. Like...shouldn't even be in the same universe. One is an incremental and lower-impact enhancement opening up of beneficial out-of-region opportunities several times a day, one is knitting Greater Boston (and out-of-region destinations) together exponentially tighter than ever before all day long at maximal economic impact. But we're reduced it to an unfavorable direct comparison because no one in a seat of power can @#$% explain what NSRL does. They can explain what East-West does more or less. They can't with NSRL. Therefore even with cavernous differences in scope and impact, NSRL pans out unfavorable.

It's not because the project itself is unfavorable. It's because nobody can give a straight answer on what it bloody is and bloody does. A purpose-and-need statement is the #1 step to mounting any initiative. And despite all the information out there (especially with the fast-rising Regional Rail talking points), those in leadership positions simply cannot get their stories straight enough to make a case. It's a colossal failure with a whole generation (or two or three) of Massachusetts leaders. And it's probably not going to get better until we clean house of all the old fossils like Lynch and the misguided Moultons and get some people who can straight-talk the run-thru and capacity-increase benefits like the Regional Rail advocacy has been able to straight-talk the general ops reform benefits. It's still a #1 transformational project target; that's never changed. The messaging needs to change, and who's talking about it clearly needs to very much change.

Preach, brother.

 

[HenryAlan]

Exactly! Think about all the other districts with their own congresspeople that Lynch could advocate for. Seems like NSRL would directly and significantly improve rail transit in all Massachusetts districts aside from maybe Neal's.

Speaking as one of Lynch's constituents, I can tell you that NSRL would hugely help my life and that of many others in my neighborhood. But I also don't think that he's really advocating for other constituencies so much as advocating for what he thinks is feasible. After his district, he should indeed see the entire state as another or secondary constituency. At least he isn't saying there is no feasible funding for any Massachusetts rail project. The Congressman is many things, and I'm not particularly a fan, but he does know how to work the legislative process and what can and cannot be achieved.

 

[bigeman312]

Speaking as one of Lynch's constituents, I can tell you that NSRL would hugely help my life and that of many others in my neighborhood. But I also don't think that he's really advocating for other constituencies so much as advocating for what he thinks is feasible. After his district, he should indeed see the entire state as another or secondary constituency. At least he isn't saying there is no feasible funding for any Massachusetts rail project. The Congressman is many things, and I'm not particularly a fan, but he does know how to work the legislative process and what can and cannot be achieved.

That’s my read on it as well.

As a related aside, if we can get to the point where NSRL is shovel ready as a stand-alone project, it will be a much easier sell for Fed dollars. That means taking care of things like electrification, capacity, and accessibility in the meantime.

 

[Tallguy]

So, the T is planning on spending upwards of 5B on efforts to increase capacity/reliability between SS and NS
SSX, Widett Circle, Southside Maintenance facility, ND drawbridge etc(yes, I know that rebuilding one draw would still be needed). If nothing else, RL would decrease run time by approximately 20% by elimination of turnaround time in the stations. West/East, as well as other service increases, are being held hostage to get support for funding this status quo band-aid. So, NSRL would really cost 3B net.

 

[Tallguy]

So, the T is planning on spending upwards of 5B on efforts to increase capacity/reliability between SS and NS
SSX, Widett Circle, Southside Maintenance facility, ND drawbridge etc(yes, I know that rebuilding one draw would still be needed). If nothing else, RL would decrease run time by approximately 20% by elimination of turnaround time in the stations. West/East, as well as other service increases, are being held hostage to get support for funding this status quo band-aid. So, NSRL would really cost 3B net.

Also, W/E is nearly all funded. Another 50M to decrease single track sections should do the job(except of course, electrification)

 

[TheRatmeister]

So, the T is planning on spending upwards of 5B on efforts to increase capacity/reliability between SS and NS
SSX, Widett Circle, Southside Maintenance facility, ND drawbridge etc(yes, I know that rebuilding one draw would still be needed). If nothing else, RL would decrease run time by approximately 20% by elimination of turnaround time in the stations. West/East, as well as other service increases, are being held hostage to get support for funding this status quo band-aid. So, NSRL would really cost 3B net.

It's a little more murky than that IMO, some of those expenditures are needed to at least lay the groundwork for electrification, Widett Circle is needed for replacing Beacon Park Yard, Southside Maintenance Facility is just a good idea for maintenance capacity and redundancy purposes, and SSX is just flat-out not necessary. With 20 minute layover times South Station already has 39 TPH to go around, which is more than enough. Just removing SSX from the picture accounts for most of that cost difference.

Spoiler: Hypotherical worst case South Station Train Allocation, with SCR Phase II, no Needham Line replacement, and OC Double-tracking

Line	TPH
Amtrak	2
Framingham/Worcester	4
Needham	2
Franklin/Foxboro	4
Providence	4
Fall River/New Bedford (SCR Phase II)	4
Middleborough/Lakeville	4
Kingston	2
Greenbush	2
Fairmount	8
Total	36

Spoiler: More reasonable slot allocation without SCR Phase II or OC Double-tracking

Line	TPH
Amtrak	2
Framingham/Worcester	4
Needham	2
Franklin/Foxboro	4
Providence	4
Fall River/New Bedford via Middleborough	2
Kingston	1
Greenbush	1
Fairmount	8
Total	28

 

[Tallguy]

It's a little more murky than that IMO, some of those expenditures are needed to at least lay the groundwork for electrification, Widett Circle is needed for replacing Beacon Park Yard, Southside Maintenance Facility is just a good idea for maintenance capacity and redundancy purposes, and SSX is just flat-out not necessary. With 20 minute layover times South Station already has 39 TPH to go around, which is more than enough. Just removing SSX from the picture accounts for most of that cost difference.

Spoiler: Hypotherical worst case South Station Train Allocation, with SCR Phase II, no Needham Line replacement, and OC Double-tracking

Line	TPH
Amtrak	2
Framingham/Worcester	4
Needham	2
Franklin/Foxboro	4
Providence	4
Fall River/New Bedford (SCR Phase II)	4
Middleborough/Lakeville	4
Kingston	2
Greenbush	2
Fairmount	8
Total	36

Spoiler: More reasonable slot allocation without SCR Phase II or OC Double-tracking

Line	TPH
Amtrak	2
Framingham/Worcester	4
Needham	2
Franklin/Foxboro	4
Providence	4
Fall River/New Bedford via Middleborough	2
Kingston	1
Greenbush	1
Fairmount	8
Total	28

While I agree that that SSX is not necessary, RR expects that trains are MOVING, not sitting at Widett. But that doesn't mean that the T won't keep pushing ahead. Look at the new contract for Kcars. The T will keep wasting money on diesel, and then whine that they don't have the money to electrify. They are still mumbling about storage at Beacon. So, how much would it cost having a reserve operator at SS, who could enter the other end of the trainset, turning it around in under 10 minutes? $300,000 per year? So, 30 years of doing this would cost $9M, but T logic would rather spend $3B on SSX.

 

[Tallguy]

And 600M is a lot for redundancy

 

[TheRatmeister]

But that doesn't mean that the T won't keep pushing ahead. Look at the new contract for Kcars. The T will keep wasting money on diesel, and then whine that they don't have the money to electrify.

Even if electrification starts today, it will be a long process. I'd wager that diesels will still be in use on lines like Greenbush or Kingston for another 15-20 years. And also they can just sell the coaches, should the T have no need for them.

but T logic would rather spend $3B on SSX.

Neither the T, nor the federal government, nor the state has committed to SSX. Right now it's just a proposal/pet project from a few people at MassDOT and the Legislature, and there have been basically no substantial updates in around 10 years. If the fact-sheet is to be believed, a major motivation was to increase layover capacity at South Station itself, but with Widett Circle going ahead that would seemingly make that a non-issue. Saying that the T would "rather spend money on SSX" is misleading at best.

And 600M is a lot for redundancy

Long term redundancy, short-term need. Again, even if the state immediately and fully funded NSRL, it would probably still not actually come into service for at least 15 years. Even in that best-case scenario, having a maintenance facility for the South side would be important in that intermediate timeframe.

 

[Tallguy]

Even if electrification starts today, it will be a long process. I'd wager that diesels will still be in use on lines like Greenbush or Kingston for another 15-20 years. And also they can just sell the coaches, should the T have no need for them.

Neither the T, nor the federal government, nor the state has committed to SSX. Right now it's just a proposal/pet project from a few people at MassDOT and the Legislature, and there have been basically no substantial updates in around 10 years. If the fact-sheet is to be believed, a major motivation was to increase layover capacity at South Station itself, but with Widett Circle going ahead that would seemingly make that a non-issue. Saying that the T would "rather spend money on SSX" is misleading at best.

Long term redundancy, short-term need. Again, even if the state immediately and fully funded NSRL, it would probably still not actually come into service for at least 15 years. Even in that best-case scenario, having a maintenance facility for the South side would be important in that intermediate timeframe.

The T is telling Central and Western MA politicians that W/E can't happen without SSX. This year.

 

[Tallguy]

The T is telling Central and Western MA politicians that W/E can't happen without SSX. This year.

They will have no value in an electrified world.