South Station Expansion Project Discussion

Well, I think the real question about South Station expansion is, how much more can actually
be done without FR/NB CR added in? I mean, what else is really important here; can they
get in a few more Worcester trains without it? Could they put in a wye (not cheap, obviously,
but still doable) and have some Indigo line trains turn at Back Bay? The point of it is, if FR/NB
is the driving element here,that's another $800 million on top of $2 billion, which is like, not
going to happen.

trainhq wrote:Well, I think the real question about South Station expansion is, how much more can actually
be done without FR/NB CR added in? I mean, what else is really important here; can they
get in a few more Worcester trains without it? Could they put in a wye (not cheap, obviously,
but still doable) and have some Indigo line trains turn at Back Bay? The point of it is, if FR/NB
is the driving element here,that's another $800 million on top of $2 billion, which is like, not
going to happen.

FR/NB is most definitely not the driving element. The schedule today has so many conflicting movements in and out on the lead tracks that many trains have to hog the platforms as de facto layovers between runs. It puts a very low ceiling on non-revenue moves in/out of Widett Circle during peak hours, the potential Fairmount schedule, the minor branch schedules, and even Worcester when Amtrak and Providence/Stoughton have to fan out into other lines' usual platform slots. They won't be able to realize full >2020 Amtrak, Providence/points-south, Worcester, and Fairmount service levels without it. The expanded station and additional crossovers help things the most by eliminating conflicting movements. I don't know how many simultaneous moves that allows...the proposed track charts will tell that story...but you can pretty much have an Old Colony or Fairmount in-transit from a platform at the same time as a Widett equipment move, an NEC, and a Worcester without any of them ever having to use the same track or pause for a conflicting movement. 4-6 simultaneous unimpeded movements or something like that where they'd be hard-pressed to have half that today.

The capacity increase will future-proof for full-blast Cape service, FR/NB, Foxboro, increased Franklin service if it went to Milford...and up to 1 more TBD branchline (Northboro-via-Framingham?). But the design isn't predicated on that because those are all branchlines. All the spoils could go to the existing alpha dog routes for dizzyingly frequent schedules. The goal of the expansion is realizing the theoretical max capacity of all the mainlines feeding the station--NEC, Worcester, Fairmount, Old Colony--and de-clogging the layover situation so equipment moves can shuttle at-will out of Widett/Southampton without having to lay over on the platforms because of conflicts on the lead tracks. Where the traffic fans out on the mains, what % gets allocated to the branches or Amtrak...that has nothing to do with SS. This just allows them to throw all the traffic at the mains (including restored tri/quad-tracking on the NEC out to Canton Jct., restored full double-track on the OC main, etc.) that those mains can truly handle...something SS was originally designed to do but hasn't been able to since it was chopped in half.

They have to knock out the PO , put a rail bridge over the channel , take over whatever Gillett doesnt use on A street, and create a transportation complex, all the way down to Summer street. Lock it up, its progress!

Teamdriver wrote:They have to knock out the PO , put a rail bridge over the channel , take over whatever Gillett doesnt use on A street, and create a transportation complex, all the way down to Summer street. Lock it up, its progress!

In the 1800's ! We've gone three steps backward, now we're going one step forward !

Dont know really where to place this , but on CBS this morning was a segment of the expansion of the subway in Manhattan, and here is the link to the pictures, submitted as a comparative to whatever could happen in Boston ...

Building NYC's Second Ave. Subway

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-3445_162-10013078.html

The MassDOT blog has a piece with some interesting tidbits about the history of South Station, which once featured a 550-seat cinema that later was converted into Our Lady of Railways Chapel, and a subterranean “ghost terminal” that proved unusable and is now office and storage space.

Link:

http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/ ... uture.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting reading. Now that many historic rail terminals have been reconditioned for commercial use, seeing a movie theater inside one nowadays isn't too far fetched (Washington Union Station had one when renovated in 1988). The lower level loop reminds me of Grand Central's lower level.

I explored and photographed the underground parts of the station during the demolition; the loop terminal area looked more like the old Scollay Sq. station than any part of Grand Central: beige tile, tightly curved track in pavement for ground-level boarding. Basically, it was an interurban terminal.

The project environmental impact report (which includes lots of great detail) is now out.

MassDOT wrote:The South Station Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is now available. MassDOT filed the DEIR with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office on October 31, 2014.

The DEIR summarizes the project’s environmental benefits and impacts. MassDOT, the MBTA, the Federal Railroad Administration, and Amtrak have identified the expansion of rail capacity at South Station as a critical regional and national transportation need. The purpose of the South Station Expansion project is to expand the station’s terminal and related layover capacity to meet current and future high-speed, intercity, and commuter rail service needs. The latest project fact sheet summarizes the main conclusions of the DEIR.

The main site is http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/southstationexpansion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but these are two good summary PDFs:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/ ... ll2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/ ... _F_WEB.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also the full report is http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/southsta ... /DEIR.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a shot of the plan:

Pretty much the same as the previous project renderings. Although that diagram doesn't show every tiny little mod to the crossover layout like the really detailed schematics do.

I haven't had a chance to read through the report yet, but am I correct in assuming from this plan that they plan to open Dot Ave to the public?

Dot Ave will be reopened to the public in some form, certainly with an extension of the Harborwalk for pedestrians. Last I heard, it's not been decided whether it will be a two-way public road, one-way public road, or for emergency vehicles/non-motorized modes only.

From GLX via Trump's project list:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: [Trump's] GLX move probably bodes well for expediting South Station Expansion and finally un-stuck'ing the USPS relocation to Southie. That's another one that's pretty much locked-and-loaded to be shovels-in-ground within this Admin.'s 1st term where a recommended project-starts rating would be another beneficial leverage card to play with Congress in the coming months as the $1T infrastructure dog-and-pony show gets rolled out.

The Trump list favors (or at least calls out) things with a "revenue stream." (GLX and Chicago's RPM rate "yes, partial", while the hydro generation and river locks rate "yes" (presumably from electricity sales and lock fees))

Would SSX qualify? What share do TOD pay for?

TransitMatters writes (https://transitmatters.org/achieving-regional-rail/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

CANCEL SOUTH STATION EXPANSION

Most importantly, the state should cancel the plans for South Station Expansion, a $2 billion project of practically no transportation value that will cement, perhaps irretrievably, outdated approaches to providing intercity rail service in the Commonwealth. Our opposition to the current South Station expansion proposal has nothing to do with our support for NSRL; it is based on what we consider an imprudent expenditure of scarce resources that solidifies the outdated status quo approach to providing intercity rail service. South Station expansion doesn’t pave the way for a better rail future; it enables continuation of the failing status quo business model.

In the short run, the MBTA can create new capacity at South Station by simply turning the trains around faster, so they don’t occupy station platforms for as long as they currently do. Today, most outbound trains terminating at Framingham and Worcester turn around and run inbound in 13 to 20 minutes. [23] The current average platform occupancy time at South Station is 35 minutes. We know of no barrier (particularly given South Station’s high level platforms) that would prevent the MBTA or its contractor from achieving 20-minute turn around times at South Station. Doing this would nearly double current capacity at South Station. This is exactly the kind of high-impact, low-cost approach to managing the system that TransitMatters advocates, and that is consistent with the approach to governance being taken by the FMCB. Since this can be done now, at virtually no net new cost to the T, why would the Commonwealth spend $2 billion to expand South Station?

Paragraph break and bolding mine.

Note 23, cited above, is Dave Perry's chart that lays out he turns on the Framingham & Worcester Lines (from May 2017) which reads in salient part:

Outbound trains 'turn' at Framingham or Worcester (and one at Ashland) to become inbound trains. Knowing this, we can use the lateness of a outbound train to predict the lateness of an inbound train. Or worse yet, we can understand which inbound train will be cancelled if an outbound train is cancelled. The entire explanation with more detail is below this table.

The current "Turn Table:"

500, 502, 504 & 508 originate in Worcester from layover yard (see explanation below)
581 becomes 582 (Framingham turn, 17 minutes)
583 becomes 584 (Framingham turn, 24 minutes)
501 becomes 506 (Worcester turn, 24 minutes)
6585 becomes 586 (Framingham turn, 15 minutes) (see explanation below)
587 becomes 588 (Framingham turn, 16 minutes)
503 becomes 510 (Worcester turn, 18 minutes)
505 becomes 552 (Worcester turn, 28 minutes)
589 becomes 590 (Ashland turn, 13 minutes)
507 becomes 512 (Worcester turn, 19 minutes)
509 becomes 514 (Worcester turn, 22 minutes)
511 becomes 516 (Worcester turn, 20 minutes)
513 becomes 518 (Worcester turn, 31 minutes)
515 becomes 520 (Worcester turn, 20 minutes)
591 becomes 592 (Framingham turn, 17 minutes)
517 becomes 522 (Worcester turn, 16 minutes)
593 becomes 594 (Framingham turn, 16 minutes)
519 becomes 524 (Worcester turn, 20 minutes)
521 goes to the layover yard in Worcester (becomes 508 next morning)
595 becomes 596 (Framingham turn, 21 minutes)
523 becomes 526 (Worcester turn, 17 minutes)
525 goes to the layover yard in Worcester (becomes 502 next morning)
527 becomes 528 (Worcester turn, 15 minutes)
551 becomes 530 (Worcester turn, 15 minutes)
529 becomes 532 (Worcester turn, 20 minutes)
531 goes to the layover yard in Worcester (becomes 504 next morning)
533 becomes 534 (Worcester turn, 15 minutes)
535 becomes 536 (Worcester turn, 20 minutes)
537 goes to the layover yard in Worcester (becomes 500 next morning)