North-South Rail Link Discussion

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:I'm a railfan and a regular commuter on the #5 Lexington Avenue Express train every day. At Grand Central, throngs of Metro-North commuters from Connecticut and Westchester pour onto the #4 and 5 trains on top of the many East Side and Bronx commuters who already pack those trains. (Where's the 2nd Avenue Subway when you need it?) So I don't think transferring from a Commuter Rail train to a trolley at North Station should be a reason for north-of-Boston commuters to stick with or go back to their cars and pack onto Route 93. If it is, then they're asking for too much.

Note, however, that the MTA is spending over six billion dollars to connect the Long Island Railroad with Grand Central Terminal, so that LIRR commuters who work on the East Side (most of them, apparently) won't have to take the subway over from Penn Station.

djlong wrote:So many responses.. I'll try to take them one at a time.

Bikes - Bikes. Are you *serious*? You won't get them in the financial district and you'll get very few in the medical district. In the 10 years I worked in the financial industry, I could count the number of bikes used for commuting on one hand. It's not so much the 90F days but the SNOW, RAIN, SLEET, ICE and - worst of all - TRAFFIC and the legendary Boston drivers.

Don't get me wrong, that's not to say I'm against the bike-riding/sharing plans. It's just not going to have that big of an impact. I agree, though, it should be added to the list of options.
.

As I said, save your skepticism until the system is launched in July.

There will be 1,000 bikes placed around Boston for use by commuters in phase 1. They arent for people riding from Belmont to financial district, but will be for the 5 minute trip from north station to south station. Right now, you dont get people riding bikes between those points because theyre not allowed on rush hour commuter trains. This removes that problem.

Wherever a bike share system has launched, it has revolutionized travel within the city. People who would "never" ride a bike, suddenly find it easier then taking the subway or bus. I'm not saying everyone will use it, or even a majority....but if 3,000 people ride it every day, then the subway platform becomes a little bit elss crowded.

Every city says they have the worst drivers, Unless you're from Mumbai, Mexico City or Manilla, then you have no idea.

Note, however, that the MTA is spending over six billion dollars to connect the Long Island Railroad with Grand Central Terminal, so that LIRR commuters who work on the East Side (most of them, apparently) won't have to take the subway over from Penn Station.

This is false reasoning.

Pennsylvania station and the 34th street tunnels are at capacity while GCT has plenty of capacity (I believe the lower level is unused at this time). Many LIRR trains have to terminate in Queens where the riders take the already-at-capacity #7 to Manhattan. The 63rd street tunnel has already aleviated overcrowding on the 53rd street tunnel. When service to GCT begins, it will will aleviate crowding on the #7 and Pennsylvania Station tubes under the East River. A North Station to South Station tunnel will not aleviate any over crowding.

I worry about the streets with this bike project. Many cyclists in this city have very little regard for cars or pedestrians. I can't tell you how many times I've almost been run over, and I saw someone got hit (though not seriously) once. In regards to the NSRL, I think it should have been built a long time ago, I think it can't be built now, cost wise.

Actually, my understanding is that GCT is pretty much at capacity (and the lower-level platforms sure looked to be in use last time I was there, a bit over a year ago), which is why they're building a completely new concourse and platforms under it for the LIRR service. Theoretically, pulling some LIRR service out of Penn might enable Metro-North to run some trains in there via the Empire Connection, but I've no idea if they're actually thinking of doing that. My point stands, however, which is that getting people to downtown destinations with a minimum of transfers is clearly a high priority for the MTA. And it's an issue in Boston too. My brother-in-law used to work right next to South Station, and he drove to a Worcester/Framingham Line station even though he lives a 15-minute walk from South Lincoln, because getting to his office via the Fitchburg Line was such a giant pain in the ass.

Though that's only one reason for building the NSRL. Other reasons are, a) we can't improve commuter rail service much without adding capacity at North and South Stations, and b) we can't grow the national passenger rail network north of Boston, at least not with decent ridership, without a way to run through service to the NEC. My sister-in-law and her family live in Maine, and if they're traveling to the NYC metro area, they take a bus to South Station (which is both faster and cheaper than the Downeaster) rather than deal with the North Station to South Station transfer hauling luggage and a kid. None of these issues will be addressed in the slightest by running a surface trolley line up the Greenway.

Jamesinclair: I have no doubt the system will be *successful*. Heck, if it can be a success in Montreal, where the weather is worse, it can be a success in Boston. What I'm skeptical about is it's effect on rush hour commuting patterns.

A regular rider on commuter rail has a monthly pass. This pass is good for the subways and buses. Why go through the added expense of an additional (bike rental) charge AND risk your life on the streets of Boston (while juggling your coffee and briefcase) when you can ride (albeit inconveniently) to South Station on 2 extra seats or Back Bay on 1 extra seat transfer?

Dag! More and more, this thread seems like a solid argument for reestablishing the Providence-routed East Wind, keeping a daylight-friendly schedule. Rehabbing the P&W and PAR beyond Worcester and up the Brook over to CPF-LJ sure would be cheaper than Big Dig Part Deux. Power could be changed either at New Haven or Providence, and Worcester Union would get more business. Good scheduling could even provide Lake Shore connections: Portland to ex-NYC points west and reverse, with only a cross-platform change at Worcester and however much cushion-wait gets built into the schedule, which would be spent in a comfortable and dry soon-to-be-century-old temple of railroading. This routing would also provide far more integration with the AMTK network and reduce the Downeaster service's quasi-orphan status. Most NEC riders looking for Downeaster connections would likely be coming from Providence or points west, so like passengers of more than half a century ago, they would have a straight-shot ride. Find yourself an old enough B&M ETT and you'll see passenger service on the B&M Worcester line was authorized for 60 mph, with some restrictions, primarily reverse curves in Sterling, the CM junction(s), and yard limits.
Unlikely? Yes, but probably less improbable than more Boston tunneling.

ceo wrote:

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:I'm a railfan and a regular commuter on the #5 Lexington Avenue Express train every day. At Grand Central, throngs of Metro-North commuters from Connecticut and Westchester pour onto the #4 and 5 trains on top of the many East Side and Bronx commuters who already pack those trains. (Where's the 2nd Avenue Subway when you need it?) So I don't think transferring from a Commuter Rail train to a trolley at North Station should be a reason for north-of-Boston commuters to stick with or go back to their cars and pack onto Route 93. If it is, then they're asking for too much.

Note, however, that the MTA is spending over six billion dollars to connect the Long Island Railroad with Grand Central Terminal, so that LIRR commuters who work on the East Side (most of them, apparently) won't have to take the subway over from Penn Station.

But this only benefits Midtown Manhattan. LIRR commuters who are headed to Lower Manhattan will still have to go to Penn Station for the subway. Or... they will be able to go to Grand Central Terminal and take the subway from there, which will put even more of a strain on the already overcrowded Lexington Avenue express trains.

jaymac wrote:Dag! More and more, this thread seems like a solid argument for reestablishing the Providence-routed East Wind, keeping a daylight-friendly schedule. Rehabbing the P&W and PAR beyond Worcester and up the Brook over to CPF-LJ sure would be cheaper than Big Dig Part Deux. Power could be changed either at New Haven or Providence, and Worcester Union would get more business. Good scheduling could even provide Lake Shore connections: Portland to ex-NYC points west and reverse, with only a cross-platform change at Worcester and however much cushion-wait gets built into the schedule, which would be spent in a comfortable and dry soon-to-be-century-old temple of railroading. This routing would also provide far more integration with the AMTK network and reduce the Downeaster service's quasi-orphan status. Most NEC riders looking for Downeaster connections would likely be coming from Providence or points west, so like passengers of more than half a century ago, they would have a straight-shot ride. Find yourself an old enough B&M ETT and you'll see passenger service on the B&M Worcester line was authorized for 60 mph, with some restrictions, primarily reverse curves in Sterling, the CM junction(s), and yard limits.
Unlikely? Yes, but probably less improbable than more Boston tunneling.

It probably wouldn't be too hard to convince P&W to host Amtrak service if their line got upgraded in the process. They have relatively frequent (for a shortline of that size) passenger excursions with their own equipment, and already run on the NEC with Amtrak trains. PAR is a different story (we all remember the fight for the Downeaster!) but the Worcester main only hosts two trains a day...they might not be too against it. (Maybe we could finally get that MBTA service between Worcester and Ayer while we're at it! )

I agree, it's very unlikely, but maybe not more so than the North-South Rail Link. We now resume your scheduled on-topic discussion.

djlong wrote:Light Rail on the Greenway - A couple of problems with that. We just spent $15B to make that into green space. No way will anyon let stations be built on it. And make no mistake, when you have 40,000 people coming in at North Station in the morning, you need stations - a simple platform doesn't do it. Ask anyone who remembers the old North Station Green and Orange line stops before the "superplatform" was built. Secondly, it's still a multi-seat ride. We already HAVE that so it's no improvement in that manner either.

North-side intercity rail. That's more a future thing than anything else. I'd love to see it but it's not a "now" selling point except for the Downeaster.

NY comparisons - there is FAR more subway capacity at Grand Central than at North or South stations (1 light, 1 heavy line at North and 1 heavy, 1 BRT line at South). Comparisons between NY and Boston are dicey anyway.

When coming in from the southside, you go through 3 major employment areas - Longwood, Back Bay and South Station. Coming in from the Northside, there's only the North end - the Tip O'Neill building, Mass General and Spaulding rehab hospitals. However there are the 80 Bruins and Celtics events at the Garden. Personally I view the through-service idea of the NSRL benefitting the northside employee and the southside sports fan most of all.

Back Bay and South Station I see. But Longwood is a bit distant from the Ruggles commuter rail/Orange Line station. Will Northside commuters stay on a commuter rail train to Ruggles and walk that distance? Or will they continue to change for the Green Line at North Station? South Station- and Back Bay-bound commuters will certainly benefit from a North-South Station rail link. Longwood, maybe not as much.

I really don't see why anyone would object to light rail along the Greenway. Did anyone object to letting cars and trucks drive there? Because they let them drive there now. You don't have to put big stations in the Greenway section. You can have simple platforms there. Why would anyone complain about that? You put the tracks in two of the existing traffic lanes (maybe it'll convince some folks to leave the car at home) You may want larger stations for the endpoints at North and South Stations to handle the crowds of people coming off the commuter trains if there's room for such stations. Of course, I believe a commuter-rail NSRL is the best option. I just think it has a much smaller chance of being built due to its higher estimated construction cost.

As for Grand Central, while you have the Lexington Avenue and Flushing lines and the 42nd Street shuttle, there actually isn't "far" more subway capacity there. All of these lines are overcrowded at most times of the day and can't be expanded and only one of those lines (Lex) serves Lower Manhattan. Worse, if you're headed to the Wall Street area, you can only take the express (#4 and 5) trains there. Also, the MTA wants to run LIRR trains into Grand Central. Which means there will be Wall Street-bound commuters from Long Island packing onto the already-overcrowded 4 and 5 trains in addition to the ones already coming from Connecticut and Westchester.

ceo wrote:Actually, my understanding is that GCT is pretty much at capacity (and the lower-level platforms sure looked to be in use last time I was there, a bit over a year ago), which is why they're building a completely new concourse and platforms under it for the LIRR service. Theoretically, pulling some LIRR service out of Penn might enable Metro-North to run some trains in there via the Empire Connection, but I've no idea if they're actually thinking of doing that. My point stands, however, which is that getting people to downtown destinations with a minimum of transfers is clearly a high priority for the MTA. And it's an issue in Boston too. My brother-in-law used to work right next to South Station, and he drove to a Worcester/Framingham Line station even though he lives a 15-minute walk from South Lincoln, because getting to his office via the Fitchburg Line was such a giant pain in the ass.

Though that's only one reason for building the NSRL. Other reasons are, a) we can't improve commuter rail service much without adding capacity at North and South Stations, and b) we can't grow the national passenger rail network north of Boston, at least not with decent ridership, without a way to run through service to the NEC. My sister-in-law and her family live in Maine, and if they're traveling to the NYC metro area, they take a bus to South Station (which is both faster and cheaper than the Downeaster) rather than deal with the North Station to South Station transfer hauling luggage and a kid. None of these issues will be addressed in the slightest by running a surface trolley line up the Greenway.

Also, Metro North and LIRR use different types of third rail power. LIRR uses over-riding third rail, where the contact shoe rests on top of the rail, like what most North American subways have. Metro-North uses under-riding third rail, so the contact show is under the rail, like SEPTA's Market-Frankford el. So the LIRR trains can't share tracks with Metro-North trains and have to be on separate tracks on a separate lower level.

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:
Back Bay and South Station I see. But Longwood is a bit distant from the Ruggles commuter rail/Orange Line station. Will Northside commuters stay on a commuter rail train to Ruggles and walk that distance? Or will they continue to change for the Green Line at North Station? South Station- and Back Bay-bound commuters will certainly benefit from a North-South Station rail link. Longwood, maybe not as much.

MASCO runs a free shuttle from Ruggles to the Longwood area so ruggles is frequently used by people who want to reach the Longwood area. You also have 5 MBTA bus routes that go to longwood from ruggles (8, 19, 47, CT2, CT3). It's a 5 minute ride when traffic is good and about 10-15 when it's bad.

Which, to add to the post above, staying on a commuter train to Ruggles from the north (running thru a NSRL) and hopping the shuttle from Ruggles would no doubt be faster, more pleasant, and more reliable than taking one's chances with the Green Line all the way from North Station. Just ask how many folks in Philly coming from the Reading side on SEPTA would rather ride to University City, or hop off at Suburban Station and wait for a subway surface trolley to run all stops the rest of the way out.

ceo wrote:Actually, my understanding is that GCT is pretty much at capacity (and the lower-level platforms sure looked to be in use last time I was there, a bit over a year ago), which is why they're building a completely new concourse and platforms under it for the LIRR service. Theoretically, pulling some LIRR service out of Penn might enable Metro-North to run some trains in there via the Empire Connection, but I've no idea if they're actually thinking of doing that.

Bringing the LIRR into GCT has little to do with capacity issues at Penn or on the subways. It was planned, and construction actually began, as far back as the late 1960's, when Penn was handling maybe half the traffic it is today. The point of the project is to give commuters who work in East Midtown a quicker and more direct ride to/from work. As it stands right now, someone who works on, say, 40th St. & 3rd Ave. has to do a time-consuming backtrack involving two separate subway lines to get over from Penn at 33rd St. & 7th Ave. It can add anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes to the trip, depending on how you hit the trains. In that respect, the benefit of the project is very much along the lines of those of a North-South link in Boston.

Most Long Islanders (at least that I know) who work in lower Manhattan take the LIRR into the downtown Brooklyn terminal at Flatbush & Atlantic Avenues, and change to the subway there for the trip into downtown. It's essentially an across-the-platform transfer from the commuter train to the B/D/M/N/Q/R/2/3/4/5 subways lines, and a straight shot in on a maybe 2-3 stop subway ride. Because of that, I don't think you're going to see a flood of LIRR riders trying to pack onto the Lexington Ave. express.

Grand Central's lower (formerly "suburban") concourse and tracks are very much in use, by the way. There was a time-- maybe back in the 70's?-- when it was basically only used at rush hour, but these days there are trains leaving from that level pretty much all day long.

I wondering could it be possible to add to have the Fairmount-Readville Line serve as a link between North Station to Readville, because I personally think it will benefit the Fairmount better and add more time to a average trip. Also, a idea how it could work is to build a underground tunnel from South Station (a station under P.S. and South Station and I think trains should run on tracks that Readville switcher between South-North. To a underground station for North Station but this is my raw opinion about the Addition / Link.