North-South Rail Link Discussion

^ not how it works.
Not all trains need to go through. Rockport and Old Colony likely won't at all. But being able to do a CR-CR change at NS to go to SS (or vv) is a sweet two seat ride for all users on all lines even if it is only NEC/Worcester going to Lowell/Fitchburg (every 10 to 15 minutes). The other benefit being the amount of subway capacity that gets freed up by offloading all those connections from Today's subway

Yellowspoon wrote: Rail travel is great for the hub-and-spoke system of travel. If I have to stop every 500m, it puts a damper on "rapid transit". If "it's for suburb-to-city trips with more spread out endpoints" why do NJT and LIRR and MetroNorth have only one station/terminal in downtown?

NJT effectively has two downtown terminals: Penn Station (more or less analogous to South Station) and Hoboken (about as far from Manhattan's employment centers as North Station is to Boston's).
LIRR is spending many billions to add a second downtown station (East Side Access). When that's done, MNRR is going to spend a decent amount of coin on access their second downtown station (Penn Station Access).

Yellowspoon wrote:

deathtopumpkins wrote: ... Third, as has been explained time and time again in this thread, the intended purpose of the NSRL is NOT suburb-to-suburb trips like Wellesley to Wilmngton - it's for suburb-to-city trips with more spread out endpoints. It's to allow northside commuters to get to Back Bay or Ruggles without having to change to the orange line. ...

Is EVERY train from Fitchburg going through to BackBay/Ruggles. What about EVERY train from Lowell, Haverill, Newburyport, and Rockport? And I mean EVERY train. If I catch a train in Concord and it doesn't go through to Back Bay, I'm gonna have to change trains anyway. Will through trains to Back Bay leave as frequently as Orange Line trains. You want to spend eight billion dollars so 200 people save about 8 minutes a day? And that doesn't include electrification. Should we electrify all the way to Fitchburg et al? All the way to Worcester or just to Framingham?

Rail travel is great for the hub-and-spoke system of travel. If I have to stop every 500m, it puts a damper on "rapid transit". If "it's for suburb-to-city trips with more spread out endpoints" why do NJT and LIRR and MetroNorth have only one station/terminal in downtown?

If it's through service to BackBay/Ruggles that you want, wouldn't it be cheaper to extend the Orange Line to Concord/Wilmington/Haverill? We could extend the Orange Line to Canton and it's already electrified.

I like to play with trains, too. However, I don't enjoy spending money just for the hell-of-it.

Actually, getting through the city to the other side is a major benefit of the NSRL. But there has to be large nodes at one or both ends. Wellesley to Wilmington (or Woburn) doesn't make sense because you can already get there as it is a "reverse commute". Wilmington to Wellesley doesn't make sense because Wellesley is too small a destination. Wellesley to Chelsea makes sense. Lynn to Providence makes sense.

Arlington wrote: (omitted text) ... But being able to do a CR-CR change at NS to go to SS (or vv) is a sweet two seat ride for all users on all lines even if it is only NEC/Worcester going to Lowell/Fitchburg (every 10 to 15 minutes). The other benefit being the amount of subway capacity that gets freed up by offloading all those connections from Today's subway

A sweet two-seat ride for all users was previously available with the Atlantic Avenue El, but it was abandoned for lack of use. Fitchburg/Worcester/Needham/Providence/Stoughton already have a sweet two-seat ride to the other side. Those lines account for about 45% of the Commuter Rail riders.

If I'm at Lechmere, why do I have to change trains to go to a Red Sox game even though through tracks already exist. If I'm at Waban, why do I have to change trains to go to a Bruins game even though through tracks already exits. In other words, it is not economically feasable to connect every village with every other village with rail.

As for subway capacity, the #7 train has two minute headways at peak times. The MBTA is no where near that except for the green line. The Green Line could easily add 50% capacity by running three car trains.

leviramsey wrote: ... NJT effectively has two downtown terminals: Penn Station (more or less analogous to South Station) and Hoboken (about as far from Manhattan's employment centers as North Station is to Boston's). LIRR is spending many billions to add a second downtown station (East Side Access). When that's done, MNRR is going to spend a decent amount of coin on access their second downtown station (Penn Station Access).

Calling Hoboken "downtown" one hell of a stretch. How many take NJT to Hoboken and then walk to work? Twelve? Hoboken is two miles from Wall Street and Times Square. The Boston financial district is only one half mile from North Station. In Hoboken, people still have to transfer to a ferry or PATH to get to Manhattan. Most likely, they have to transfer again when they get to 6th Avenue or WorldTrade. Trains are best for hub-and-spoke transit.

The primary purpose of Hoboken and East Side Access it not the desire for more stations. It is because Penn Station and the tunnels are at capacity. That's why Metro North can't go into Penn until East Side access is complete. The purpose of the Metro-North-Penn-Station project is to add access to east Bronx. Why don't they build a station at Ditmars Boulevard and let people transfer to the subway?

re: Metro-North Penn access: The metro north propaganda twists facts to congeal into their predefined objectives. Amtrak time from New Rochelle to Penn is 30 +/- minutes. MetroNorth, with four added stops, will add 5-6 minutes making it the same as GCT, also with four stops. Little time savings there. Their web page states, "Provide a new train ride—without transfers—from New Haven Line communities to jobs, shopping, and other destinations on Manhattan’s West Side" How does one get to Times Square or Greenwich Village without a transfer? Even with Metro-North going to Penn Station (passing through Long Island without stopping), it still means that Long Island commuters (the most populated island in the country) have no rail access beyond the city limits of New York EVEN THOUGH TRACKS ALREADY EXIST to Connecticut, New Jersey and upstate New York. Few people want to go through New York City. The few that do want to go through, must change trains.

BandA wrote: ... Wellesley to Chelsea makes sense. Lynn to Providence makes sense.

Is every Framingham train going to go to Chelsea? If not, the 8 people a day who want to make that trip will probably have to change trains.

My degree is in mathematics, so let's talk numbers. This project is projected to cost eight billion dollars. That doesn't include electrification beyond the portals. It doesn't include the running or maintenance costs. It doesn't include the inevitable cost overruns. So, let's just talk eight billion dollars. At four percent interest, that's six million dollars A WEEK in interest alone. Six million dollars a week is $1.2 million per work day. Using an after-tax wage of $15 per hour, that's the equivalent of eighty thousand man-hours. Someone please tell me how the hell you plan to save eighty thousand man-hours every work day. Commuter Rail ridership is about seventy thousand per weekday, and most of them will see no change. Show me that the average user will save more than one hour every day.

Why not spend some money to speed up the current system. (1) When the Riverside line first opened, it boasted 35 minutes to Park Street. Even the T's web site now says 20% longer at 42 minutes, and that figure is a joke. When I time it, my typical time from Waban to Copley is 38-40 minutes, and I've skipped 28% of the 18 stations. (2) The cape flyer takes 70-75 minutes to get to Wareham. The Old Colony line took 59-62 minutes and had more stops. (3) The sign, "8 minutes to Park Street" is long gone from Harvard where it typically takes 11-12 minutes. With twenty-first century technology, we now take is 20%-25% longer than fifty-five years ago. If each of these examples could revert to their old times, commuters would save far more time than a NSRL.

I like to play with trains, too. I just don't want to spend eight billion dollars to do it. This project has "pork" written all over it.

The Atlantic Avenue Elevated was closed at a time when Kendall was nothing but warehouses, the LMA didn't yet exist, the Seaport was a seaport, the Back Bay wasn't nearly as important a business area, Assembly and Lechmere were industrial areas, Beacon Park was not strongly being considered for development, and the country was in the worst economic depression it's every seen. It also did not reduce the number of transfers required to reach destinations, which the NSRL does. Regardless of the rest of your arguments, if you're trying to make a point, bringing up the El does nothing to further it.

I don't think we're looking at $8B (unless you build the optional Central Station and electrify EVERYthing). Nor do I think the bill will come in at the $2B that Dukakis and Weld suggest.

But let me add something about my experiences. In the 1990s, I worked in the Seaport District - for Fidelity. There were a LOT of people coming down from NH and the North Shore, like me, who HAD to drive because the train option simply wasn't there in any PRACTICAL sense. Being able to take ONE ride to South Station would have been a GODsend. Now. Look what's happened to the Seaport District in the last 20 years. They were still building the I-90 extension when I worked there.

Yeah, I have a pie-in-the-sky idea of someday being able to ride one train from the Manchester Airport to T. F. Green Airport.. But there are more people out there for whom the North/South "gap" might as well be a wall.

Look at what such a tunnel did for Paris and Philadelphia. That alone should be justification. Electrify the trains and you can functionally have up to THIRTEEN NEW RAPID TRANSIT LINES - for the price of one tunnel with four portals. When and where are you EVER going to get that kind of bang for the buck? (Ok, it's really 10 since you can't do much with the Old Colony Lines - but you get my point)

Your idea reminds me of European cities like Munich or Vienna - the u-bahn and the s-bahn. The u lines serve the city center while the s lines serve the suburbs, all in rapid transit style. The s-bahn serves the airport, which is 35km (~21 miles) outside the city.

There is also a regional train system, which serves what, in the US would be the ex-urbs / far suburbs. (Effectively, beyond 495.)

What djlong says is exactly my own experience. In 35 years of working, hiring and chosing locations around Boston when companies needed to move, I always had to be aware of the practicality of various commutes. Located 100 yards from Malden Center, I successfully hired people who could change from CR to Orange at Back Bay. Nobody who had to use South Station and walk/Red to Orange even applied. A North-South connection won't make all the possible pairs practical, but it will open up a lot of combinations that are presently laughable.

But I still think that if it is built in my life time, it will be a double-track elevated line down the middle of the Greenway.

Well, 30-40 years ago the consensus was that elevated lines were unsightly, hence the OL and CR to BB being buried in a trench.
NOW, all of a sudden, an elevated line that close to the water makes MUCH more sense with ocean levels rising so dramatically so fast.
We'll see....

North South Rail Link back in the news today:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/201 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rep Moulton is an interesting guy. An actual military veteran who is a democrat.

And Moulton described the project as a big real estate move, because it would avoid the need for additional railyard space near South Station to park trains. That space, he said, could be better used for new developments.

Wrong; it is best used for transportation. In fact there is too little space set aside for transportation.

Trains, meanwhile, could be stored away from the city, in less expensive real estate.

Where? Billerica? People need to get to work in the urban core. They don't need maximum service all day. Paying crews to drive empty trains back and forth all day is more wasteful than having adequate facilities, located where they are needed - in Boston.

Several prominent Boston developers have already lined up in support: Moulton’s office cites Robert Beal, the recently retired president of Related Beal; HYM Investment Group managing director Tom O’Brien; and Boston Properties’ Bryan Koop as examples.

Follow the money!

Moulton describes this as an either-or; $1.6M for seven tracks at South Station (does that include storage yard(s)?) or $2M for N-S rail link (others say $8M). I think we need south station expansion now (with additional storage and maintenance facilities) and can do N-S rail link some decades later.

Not millions, Shirley.

lol, off by only three magnitudes. I would make a good government planner!

If there was any way to do a project like connecting North and South stations that would make some economic sense, the time would have been when the "Big Dig" was underway. To start from scratch, the costs to those who pay taxes, would be in the billions, and with the history of the super inflated costs of the Big Dig, add more billions and billions to the project.. The window of this opportunity is closed. Although if a freak earthquake hits Boston and leaves a huge schism, enough for a double track, between North and South Stations, then IMHO, you got to go for it.

"that close to the water"

Can an elevated line be made attractive and quiet and not too expensive? For example single concrete pylons supporting a pair of concrete beams or roadbeds running a monorail system or a rubber tired airport tram or a Maglev (Wedway)?


"in Billerica?"

How many times has someone groaned when there was a proposal to add yet another commuter rail stop inside 128 (such as "West Station" near Boston U)?

How short can the stop at a terminal (namely North Station or South Station) be with the train pulling out again quickly?

If some trains were laid up "in the suburbs" perhaps some of their stops inside Rte. 128 could be made "last dropoff" in the morning or "first pickup" in the afternoon as the train "deadheads" out to or starts up from the layup point, with fewer stops made during the main run to or from Worcester, Fitchburg, etc. So the extra mileage necessitated by the remote layup yard would be made up for by a shorter trip time when the bulk of the passengers are on board.