NoBoston South to Boston North?

[Noel Weaver]

I think creating a direct rail connection between North Station and South Station would be nice BUT it would also be a huge waste of available funds. Massachusetts is facing a huge potential outlay for the demand for more commuter service to a larger area outside of Boston, this will cost big bucks to establish especially New Bedford and Fall River. Bridge work costs money as they will find out at Haverhill. I'll bet there are numerous other bridges that need considerable work now or in the very near future. The only passengers who will really benefit would be through passengers between New York on one hand and Portland, Maine on the other hand or scheduled intermediate stops in each case. For Massachusetts to spend a ton of money to accomodate these passengers would not benefit neither Massachusetts in general nor Boston in particular. Through service through Worcester would be a lot less money and would benefit Worcester among other places with providing them direct passenger service to the Northeast Corridor. As for electrification of commuter routes out of Boston, I think it would be a good idea to electrify some territory out of South Station but nothing out of North Station. Stoughton comes to mind as does the old "Second District" now knows as the Fairmount Branch. Maybe Needham and Franklin as well as there is not a long distance involved in any of these lines and the whole operation would be much simpler to conduct and probably cheaper to operate as well. The Grand Junction is an adequate piece of railroad for equipment moves between North and South but it would not be a good passenger route and to consider using it for revenue passenger service makes absolutely no sense at all.
Noel Weaver

[djlong]

Stmtrolleyguy:

Walking? Try that in the winter or with luggage or both.
Subway? We have that now and the crowds at Park, DC, etc, are pretty bad.
Taxi? Non-starter.
Greenway bus? Well, let me demonstrate that problem with an example.

I'm coming from the north and I want to go to a job near JFK/Umass (a friend of mine has this)

I get on the train at Lowell, get off at No. Station, get on your bus, get off your bus, get on the subway and get off at JFK/UMass. 3 seats, several walks.

With the NSRL, at worst it's one transfer at North or South (or the mythical proposed Central Station). Much more efficient.

All those people on the South Shore who work in Cambridge would benefit as all those on the north side who work in the financial district (like I used to). That takes some pressure off the subway crowds.

Yeah, electrification has to come along with it - no argument there - but that makes things even more efficient.

JohnRR:

Yeah, London is so happy with their several terminals around the city that they're spending BILLIONS of pounds on their new Crossrail project.

deathtopumpkis and stevefol:

The 'reservation' for the NSRL is BELOW the roadway - the slurry walls were dug further down than they had to for the I-93/I-90 part of the project. That's the reason the NSRL's portal will be in Dorchester, Cambridge and Somerville - because of the long inclines they need to get below the existing infrastructure at South and North Stations.

[Rockingham Racer]

to djlong:

Please tell us why a taxi from North Station to South Station is a "non starter". Do you mean from a cost point-of-view? I've done that more than once.

[TomNelligan]

Mr. Djlong, there is no question that a multi-billion-dollar tunnel/electrification project would benefit some fraction of the people who ride trains into Boston. The question that I want my representatives to address is cost versus benefit. First, where does the money come from in a situation where the MBTA is already hard pressed to meet capital and operating costs? Second, if piles of unallocated MBTA money should somehow appear, would it benefit a larger number of people by being spent elsewhere? For example, a state-of-the-art signal system for the Green Line to speed rush hour service would benefit many thousands of riders daily, and that number of riders can be concretely determined rather than speculated.

[jonnhrr]

[QUOTE]JohnRR:

Yeah, London is so happy with their several terminals around the city that they're spending BILLIONS of pounds on their new Crossrail project.{/QUOTE]

As currently designed it runs/east/west to connect 2 main line stations Paddington and Liverpool St., does nothing for Euston, Waterloo, Charing Cross, Victoria, or Kings Cross not to mention a few other smaller terminals. Of course it would have other benefits for commuters on one side of London going to jobs on the other side for example.

I would say if the N-S RL is ever built it would be more for the benefit of interconnecting the 2 commuter rail systems a la the Philly CCCT, with through Amtrak connections a minor side benefit.

Jon

[Bobby S]

I started a topic about this awhile back. I still think they dropped the ball by not having a tunnel put in during the "big dig" that they could have used, well maybe about now. How much more would it have cost considering the "overruns" that they had anyway? Some people swear that there is a tunnel there but others say they never put one in. Who knows? And how would this have worked? Would they have dropped the platforms/tracks below ground at South Station?

[djlong]

Rockingham Racer: Taxis are not a commuting solution largely due to the expense. Also, having been a taxi driver for a few weeks, I can tell you that I'd *hate* having to wait for the crowd at North/South Station to show up only to have a 1 mile fare. As long as the supply of taxis is subject to the artificial limitations of medallions, and the fact that in Boston you can only call a Boston cab (i.e. you can't call a Cambridge cab even if you're headed to MIT), it's not a general commuting solution.

TomNelligan: I won't argue that you're looking at a lot of money. But electrification allows for other opportunities (to say nothing of pollution and noise being less of a problem). EMUs can run on MUCH better headways and, at least within 128, you could have "almost rapid transit service" for a fraction of the cost of actually building subways out there. To your point, I dont' have any expectations of the thing actually being built because of the need for federal money and the Big Dig memory. It's an opportunity that was lost mostly because of the memory of how the state handled the Central Artery project. The Big Dig ballooned SO much more than the typical project becuase of all the blackmail they were forced to pay - oh, sorry, "mitigation" to keep people from suing. This was because of the memory of how I-93 was built. They condemned people's houses, paid them $1 and told them to sue in court for 'fair market value'. So you had all these people paying mortgages on destroyed home PLUS their new living expenses taking low-ball offers form the state so they could get SOMEthing in less than several years timeframe. People haven't forgotten that.

Bobby S: No, the platforms at North and South Station stay. What you get is an underground cavern with platforms for the thru-tracks (preferably 4 tracks) much like I saw when I rode the R1 in Philadelphia. Through trains would go underground, trains terminating at North/South Station would still use the existing platforms. For example, the Old Colony Lines were not tied to any 'through service' on the maps I saw so *all* of those trains would still terminate on the old platforms.

[gprimr1]

I'm still on the fence a bit about how thru trains would work. There is no electrification to Portland so an engine change would be required. I'm not sure I see Amtrak being willing to run more diesel trains.

[george matthews]

Yeah, London is so happy with their several terminals around the city that they're spending BILLIONS of pounds on their new Crossrail project.

Crossrail is to cope with increasing travel need into London. The main cause is increasing jobs in London, and rising population. Crossrail will handle the east-west traffic. There are already three north-south connections. There may be another cross town link in the future. BTW most of the new lines use overhead electrification - north of the Thames.

The north of Boston lines ought to be electrified also. There really is a world problem of carbon dioxide rising in the atmosphere. In the near future there will have to be severe curbs on the burning of oil.

[gprimr1]

I think electrifying the lines is a bit of a pipe dream. MA doesn't have the money. Between MBTA, and now investing in the Springfield Knowledge Corridor, not much is left over.

[TomNelligan]

The north of Boston lines ought to be electrified also.

Mr. Matthews, there are many things that "should" be done to make this world a perfect place, but there is simply no public money currently available or likely to appear for Boston suburban electrification. You may or may not be aware that commuter train density around Boston is a fraction of that found around London or Birmingham (or New York or Chicago), and as one who has made 16 trips to the UK over the past 30 years (including some sessions of rush-hour train-watching at Clapham Junction!) I'm somewhat familiar with the rail situation over there. It's very different in terms of service density. In Boston, one train an hour or less is typical for off=peak services on most lines. That's not enough to support the capital cost of electrification these days.

[Stmtrolleyguy]

Stmtrolleyguy:

Walking? Try that in the winter or with luggage or both.
Subway? We have that now and the crowds at Park, DC, etc, are pretty bad.
Taxi? Non-starter.

That's exactly my point! There IS no easy way to do it. You're either doing it the neanderthal way (on foot), the sardine way (Ala MBTA subway), or you take a taxi. There's no easy way to get point-point, station - station.

A north-south connector wouldn't help you if you got on a train at Lowell to work by JFK/Umass. You need to end up on the subway anyways, so its almost a moot point if you get on right at North Station, or got on somewhere else. The greenway bus would only help if you needed to get from North to South Stations (or anywhere along the greenway. (We agree that it sucks to walk in winter.) I'm usually NOT a fan of busses, but it would be the cheapest/easiest way to directly connect the two stations. It just seems like the easiest way to connect the two stations - without spending billions on a tunnel.

[station122]

Thanks for the interesting comments. My original intent was to do PHL to Gloucester Mass. No way did I want to drive!!!! If I was fanning, no problem, but with the wife,no way.....................

[gprimr1]

It's a bit of a controversial issue as you can see.

I think your best bet is Back Bay-Orange Line-North Station.

[Stmtrolleyguy]

It's a bit of a controversial issue as you can see.

I think your best bet is Back Bay-Orange Line-North Station.

I'll second that. No transfers on the subway, and its a one-seat ride. It shouldn't take too long, there's plenty of announcements for North Station.
Going back, I'd suggest South Station though. Its a great station to see, and a bit less utilitarian and underground then Back Bay.