NoBoston South to Boston North?

[Stmtrolleyguy]

Just my thoughts on this :

There's two separate problems here. The first is getting trains between North and South station. The second is getting people between North and South stations.
There are many ways to get people form one station to the other.

1. Walking! The two stations are not very far apart, and pretty easily connected on foot, or by road, via the Greenway (the surface roads and parks created when the highway was buried in the Big Dig.) Its a really easy 20-30 minute walk.
2. Subway! Red Line at South Station, transfer at Downtown Crossing, get on Orange Line to North Station.
3. Taxi. About a mile.

There's one way to get a physical train from one to the other.
Going by rail on the Grand Junction Route, to get a train from one to the other, involves a slow surface route that involves changing direction once or twice, and geographically goes way out of the way to get from one station to the other. Even if you could somehow drop some RDCs on the track running between the two stations tomorrow, it would take a long time to get from N to S Station via rail. Getting around that problem would require a multi-billion dollar tunnel.***


I'd much rather simply be able to hop on a bus that goes right down the Greenway, on the surface roads, to connect the two stations. It's not a railroad solution, but it's the most direct way to get from one station to the other. It would be cheaper then a taxi, and maybe a little faster then walking. (It would at least be better then walking outside in the weather 6 months of the year.) The railroad stations are pretty much at the ends of the Greenway anyways - so toss in 2 or 3 stops in the middle, and you've got a connection between the train stations, and a shuttle route down the greenway. Make it a special 50 cent fare or something.

Take the 2 or 3 billion dollars it would cost to build the rail tunnel and do something useful instead - like other railroad improvements, or subway improvements that benefit thousands more riders per day.

***Also remember that it's not just construction of a tunnel. You couldn't just build the tunnel tomorrow and have trains run through from one station to the other. South Station has overhead electric from Amtrak, for the NEC. North Station, and the entire MBTA system, does not. (The MBTA doesn't even use electric locomotives on routes completely under the electrification on the NEC.) So the electrification would have to extend from South Station, through the tunnel, to a yard at North Station, where locomotives would have to be swapped to continue to points North. The same would have to happen for any trains headed South. Each station right now functions as a terminal - the end of the line. No trains run through - its the first or last stop for ALL trains. Both stations are also dominated by the commuter rail - its really a commuter terminal where Amtrak and Acela trains sneak in a couple times per day.

[jonnhrr]

I don't understand the need for an N-S rail ink. Many cities get along fine with subway connections like the OL back bay to North Station. London for example where you have 10 or so main line stations most of which are only connected by the Underground. Or New York where you don't even have a one seat connection, you have to change to 2 different lines (1/2/3 or A/C/E to 42nd street shuttle or 7). People want to spend billions to provide something that will carry a fraction of what these other cities handle just fine with subway connections.

Jon

[FP10]

I live in Boston, and over the years I've gone back and forth on my opinion of the N-S link. First of all, I grew up in Metro NY, and as already stated, NYC has two major terminals that are not that easy to get between, and has far more transit riders than Boston. Somehow, NYC manages to function, as Boston has for the past 200 years just fine.

On the other hand, GCT does not see Amtrak service any longer, which BON does. Commuters and intercity PAX are different animals, and having intercity passengers have to take a cab or subway to continue their trip south (especially with luggage, or a family) is inconvenient, to say the least. I'm sure it doesn't help with ridership either, which is a good part of the reason why Maine is looking at dumping millions into garbage track through Ayer to get to NY and the NEC.

Even though NYP is a terminal on a map, the trains thru-run to their layover yards, reducing idiling time at the platforms. Neither Boston terminal has this ability, all trains must be turned. Since there is barely any layover space, they usually just leave them on the platform (especially at BOS). Conversely, GCT has more platforms than BOS and BON combined, so laying over trains on the platform is not as large an issue there.

BOS is either at or near capacity, and it's only going to get worse. They are looking at getting a southside storage and maintenance yard, but it's an ongoing process and requires building redundant facilitates, and spending more money. Even once they do, there is still the time involved to turn the train. Thru-running commuter trains significantly reduces this crunch, and reduces the need for a second maintenance facility. There is also the benefit of reverse commuting and lightening the load on the subway. A lot of commuters from south of Boston are going to the Cambridge area. With proper thru-running, they could avoid the subway system all together and stay on the CR.

Boston is looking at acquiring DMUs and running much more dense and frequent service to supplement the subway system. For the above reasons, and then some, the N-S link would make this system far more useful.

The Grand Junction is the only link between the north and south sides besides a lengthy detour via Worcester. However, that ROW is much more valuable as a rapid transit corridor. It can not be reclaimed for that use without either tunneling the whole line, or creating another way to get trains between BON and BOS.

Some of the preliminary work for the N-S link is already done. When they built the CAT (central artery/tunnel), they constructed deeper slurry walls beneath it so should funding arise for the link, it would be a simplified process of removing the fill and installing a liner. The big part of the cost is actually not so much the tunnels, but the approaches and underground platforms and BOS and BON. Because of the grades involved and the relative flatness of the Boston area, the portals would have to be pretty far out, and individual ones would be required for each line.

As for electric, the MBTA needs to *poop* or get off the pot already. Some of the southside lines could benefit from electrification, they already run under wires on the NEC (getting in the way of Amtrak trains), and they may need to buy electric locos anyway if the Army Corps of Engineers forces them to with the South Coast Rail extensions to Fall River and New Bedford. If RIDOT continues their system expansion and the MBTA remains as the contractor for their commuter service, they will likely be looking at electric as well, as most of their expansion plans are NEC based. Either way, if the link was built I don't foresee Amtrak stopping at BON any longer. The wires would likely be run out to Anderson RTC, with an engine change there. Unless it's possible to attach a diesel at BOS, but not fire it up until out of the tunnel, and then just drag the electric to Portland and back dead. They could also swap out an all-electric for a dual mode at BOS, requiring wires to only be extended as far as BET on the northside. No matter what, the MBTA should be looking at electrics anyway, and the link would only force their hand in the right direction.


In case it's not obvious, my opinion has recently swayed in favor of the link. That being said, the Central Station idea is beyond stupid and an incredible waste of money. I do think, however, that with several projects that could benefit from it (Maine-NY, DMU expansion, storage constraints, subway capacity crunch, rehabbing the Grand Junction for more PAX service), it should be looked at sooner than later. It would be silly to spend a bunch of money on projects that may not be necessary if the link was built.

[TomNelligan]

People want to spend billions to provide something that will carry a fraction of what these other cities handle just fine with subway connections.

My feelings exactly. And if someone has a spare billion or two burning a hole in their pocket, there are plenty of other infrastructure projects in Massachusetts in need of funding that would serve far more people than the relative handful who have occasion to travel between the South Side and North Side Amtrak or commuter lines and won't take the Orange Line or a taxi.

As for electric, the MBTA needs to *poop* or get off the pot already."

That's it standing up right now as the new diesel fleet goes into service. Most MBTA commuter lines do not have sufficient service density to justify the enormous upfront cost of new electrification.

[stevefol]

Firstly, I thought at least the space for the rail ABOVE the roadway was reserved as part of the Big Dig? This should reduce tunneling cost.

Done correctly this would be like Crossrail in London (which is currently estimated at $20bn, but is a much bigger project with about 40 miles of deep level tunnel using a dozen TBM's). All MBTA routes would be electrified, and offer a far more frequent service with trains running "through" the city. This could actually release a large amount of real estate (which could be used to help fund the project) at both North and South Station which would no longer need all the terminus tracks (just 3 or 4 for Amtrak at South Station), and be replaced by through platforms underground (Crossrail will run 24 tph in each direction). With dual locomotives, Downeaster service could run through to NYC.

Would it be cheap? no, but a lot less than the big dig, and a lot more beneficial (Boston could grow to become a true world city, rather than the somewhat provincial joke it is now)

[deathtopumpkins]

Firstly, I thought at least the space for the rail ABOVE the roadway was reserved as part of the Big Dig? This should reduce tunneling cost.

Correct, space within the big dig excavation was reserved for the N-S Link.

Would it be cheap? no, but a lot less than the big dig, and a lot more beneficial (Boston could grow to become a true world city, rather than the somewhat provincial joke it is now)

Oi, as a Bostonian I take offense to that! Don't you know we're the hub of the universe!?

[jcpatten]

Firstly, I thought at least the space for the rail ABOVE the roadway was reserved as part of the Big Dig?

The roadway tunnel dips up and down quite a bit in order to miss certain other tunnels. If memory serves, it has to dip down below the Blue Line subway, then climb to get above the Red Line subway. In some places it is not very far from the ground surface. So there's no room for a rail tunnel between ground level and the highway for the entire length of the CAT.

Considering how much the tunnel does climb and dip, I've always been curious whether the slurry walls were driven to the same depth throughout so that a future rail tunnel has a pretty level run.

[AgentSkelly]

I think the whole need for a North-South link in Boston goes back to the different attitudes of transportation than the rest of the northeast; Bostonians never liked having two stations so close to each other there is no way to just link them together; they want to be able to go one and be done with it.

Meanwhile in NYC thanks to the decades of service from New York Central and the Pennsey, there is this mentality that generations even today to a certain extent of that if you want to go North you go to Grand Central and if you want to in all the other directions, you go to Penn Station.

[nomis]

In Philly there was once three main railroad stations, two Pennsy and one Reading. They were all connected by a subway ride, or even walking.

Someone had a great idea and took one of the stations and decided to make a new replacement 'under' it and orient it's platforms to no longer be perpendicular to the other 2 stations. With yards connected on either side of the tunnel entrances, equipment is balanced to match ridership and utilized to its fullest extent that branches would allow in Rush hour service. People get closer to their destinations without needing to take a two seat ride, overburdening those connections.

In the 80's it was built and called the CCCC.

[BandA]

Let's make a list of alternatives:

No build option
enhance existing modes (subway/bus/bicycle/zipcar/taxi/livery/scooter/boat/rickshaw)
surface artery streetcar w/bagage handling
build a new Atlantic Avenue EL or monorail
Grand Junction
n-s rail link
under the harbor (transit version of "Back the BB")
EL above route 128
recapture north-south rail-trails through Framingham area??
via Worcester

[TomNelligan]

Let's make a list of alternatives:

I'd like to add "personal helicopter shuttle" for the benefit of the folks here who seem to think that Massachusetts has unlimited billions in transportation funds to spend without regard to cost/benefit ratios.

[BandA]

I'd like to add "personal helicopter shuttle" for the benefit of the folks here who seem to think that Massachusetts has unlimited billions in transportation funds to spend without regard to cost/benefit ratios.

Operating cost for four-person helicopter is $1.80/mile, plus cost of pilot http://www.robinsonheli.com/price_lists ... _2_eoc.pdf Should definitely launch a study

[BandA]

What do we want in a new transportation line?

Faster
Convenient
Reliable
Cheaper


What approaches do we need to achieve these four goals?

Innovation
Discipline


How does a north-south rail link fit each of these goals? How do we do this in an innovative and disciplined way?

[ExCon90]

In Philly there was once three main railroad stations, two Pennsy and one Reading. They were all connected by a subway ride, or even walking.

Someone had a great idea and took one of the stations and decided to make a new replacement 'under' it and orient it's platforms to no longer be perpendicular to the other 2 stations. With yards connected on either side of the tunnel entrances, equipment is balanced to match ridership and utilized to its fullest extent that branches would allow in Rush hour service. People get closer to their destinations without needing to take a two seat ride, overburdening those connections.

In the 80's it was built and called the CCCC.

Actually, I believe it was an engineering student at Penn or someplace who came up with it in connection with a class assignment, and as more and more people looked at it they began to think hey, this could work. Frank Rizzo, mayor of Philadelphia at the time, saw how many union construction jobs would be created, and pushed hard for it. They put a retired Army engineer in charge who really got the work organized (I gather that herding subcontractors on a large project is something like herding cats), and it came in on time and under budget. I can hardly believe it's been 30 years. I still think that if the Reading had chosen 3 Kv DC when they electrified instead of what the PRR had, the project might not have been feasible.

[Stmtrolleyguy]

There is one other thing to consider about connecting the two stations in Boston - who's it really supposed to benefit? I think a lot of us are looking at it from a local perspective. It's not just about connecting the stations - its about the big picture allowing run-through trains. Right now, all the main Amtrak service to points North goes from New York. Vermont, Montreal, Canada - you have to go to New York first. It's not worth a few billion dollars to build a tunnel right now - but it could radically alter the rail map in the Northeast.