At a Boston City Council hearing this afternoon on connecting commuter-rail lines that now end at North and South stations, former Gov. Mike Dukakis had a simple message: "Please kill any further work on South Station expansion; it's totally unnecessary."
Dukakis was one of several speakers pushing to connect and electrify the rail lines that now dead end at the city's two main commuter rail stations at a hearing called for by at-large Councilor Annissa Essaibi-George. A link between the north and south sides of the commuter-rail system would let trains continue onto other destinations, rather than being forced to sit at the stations - or nearby rail holding areas, for example, in Widett Circle in South Boston and Readville in Hyde Park
All said that while the North/South Rail Link would cost billions, it would save the billions that would otherwise go to adding more tracks to the two stations - even without taking into account the increased economic opportunities from connecting residents on one side of Boston with jobs on the other and the savings from easing the region's worst-in-the-nation highway congestion, by getting more people on trains.
And, Dukakis and other speakers said, it would offer far more opportunities for expansion of the regional rail system while adding more tracks at two dead-end stations would have no more room for future expansion. Former state Rep. Businger of Brookine doubted South Station expansion could ever even happen, because it relies on the Postal Service moving its large Fort Point facility somewhere else, and the Postal Service has shown great reluctance in doing that.
Clay Schofield, who worked on north/south engineering studies under Dukakis, added it would make it far easier to maintain commuter-rail locomotives - 62% of which are on South Station lines, forcing them to take an arduous journey across the Charles River and through Cambridge streets to get to the T's locomotive repair facilities in Somerville.
Dukakis and Businger said the issues involved in actually getting the link built are far more political than technical. Schofield said the bulk of the work would fall on tunnel-boring machines deep underground - unlike with the Big Dig. He said London built 26 miles of new subway tunnels with almost no above-ground disruption.
Dukakis said the Baker administration, for some reason, is having "a particularly difficult time getting projects up and moving that are essential." They can't even spend the money they have appropriated, he said, adding "they've got to commit themselves to more than maintenance."
State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) , who has long advocated for the rail link, acknowledged some people are fearful of a second Big Dig, but said it's time for "bold vision for what's possible."
Dukakis and other speakers derided a report by a state-hired consultant last year that cited a potential $12.8-billion cost, saying the study foisted expenses onto the proposal that the state has to pay for anyway, such as new train cars and signals. They acknowledged that more work is needed to determine an exact cost. Businger said that any further studies should include the costs of doing nothing - in terms of congestion on both the rail systems and regional roads.
State Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Concord) says we need to stop thinking that roads can just be built and paid for by the state while expecting public-transit projects to play second fiddle.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
If built, some trains would terminate
By GoSoxGo
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 3:03pm
at North Station, and others at South Station, but many would be routed underground to serve both stations. Each will have underground platforms along with the current platforms.
It would be interesting, and
By Rob
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 5:44pm
It would be interesting, and I'm not ruling it out. It's just that I've yet to hear or see any serious consideration of how that would work. These aren't insurmountable problems, but I'd like to hear if proponents have thought about the details...
- How deep would such a line need to be to be below (at assorted points) underground utilities, road tunnels, rapid-transit tunnels, and less-than-rapid-transit (hi, Silver Line, luv you - ) tunnels? 50 feet? 70 feet?
- to get trains to and from that depth at a manageable incline, how far back would tunnel portals need to be?
- how far back do you have to go where there's sufficient space to widen the existing rights-of-way and put tunnel portals without removing existing track?
- If the portal points are further back than the merge points of the different lines on the surface approaches to North & South Stations, do you build multiple portals/tunnels (merging lines underground) or provide the "important regionally-beneficial through-service" to only one or two lines?
- how big would the underground station(s) need to be?
- - I'd imagine (at a bare minimum) two platforms and four tracks to serve four trains at the same time (commuter quick pickup & dropoff in each direction, lengthier Amtrak discharge & boarding in each direction) plus one bypass track, plus they'd have to be large platforms since the waiting room space would have to be on them, plus they'd also have to be large to fit all the elevators/escalators & emergency stairs that would be required.
- - In fact, you'd need to have platform & track space for each commuter line you propose to run underground. You'd never be able to move people down to boarding platform in time if they're all waiting upstairs to hear if the westbound Needham train or the southbound Braintree train is going to be next arrival.
- All of those elevators, escalators, & emergency stairs - where are you going to take room to fit them in the footprint of the surface stations?
- to run in tunnels, it would be much better off electric. So, at a minimum, they'd need to add some catenary, plus electric locomotives and/or trainsets, plus new maintenance facilities - sufficient to handle however many of today's commuter lines they propose to run through tunnel.
Has Been Studied
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:34pm
Originally as the alignment under the 93 (supposedly clean backfill with slurry walls all the way). The recent study proposed an alternative routing, too, and goes into details on pretty much everything you are asking. Also, yes, electrification is a must (ventilation and grades).
Well, that's on you
By Mjolnir
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 6:27am
Rob, NSLR has been extensively studied for something like decades, inducing the answers to all your questions. The portal sites for TBM insertion, the depth and location and size of tunnels (at least two different tunnel routings with at least two different tunnel sizes for 4 vs 2 track options), options with new deeper platforms for North/South/Central (aka Aquarium) vs ones just for South and a Haymaker area station, etc etc. Google it. This isn't being spitballed, this has been laboriously examined and the answers to your questions are available in these plans.
No, I'm talking about the
By Rob
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 9:16am
No, I'm talking about the comment-box commandos that say "it's easy", "do it", and such things and don't present anything (or even link to anything) to back it up. The type who are spitballing because they say "Hey! This sounds great!" and don't think at all about how it would have to be done in order to work.
2-track tunnel? Ridiculous. Not worth doing with anything less than four tracks.
"Comment-Box Commandos"
By Mjolnir
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 10:37am
To be a little more generous, maybe some of those people have been discussing the details for years on here and elsewhere and are well-versed on all the stuff you mentioned not knowing anything about, and as a result are tired of discussing to death and just would like to move forward? For instance, the portal sites can't really change too much, but if additional land development happens to the North, it would make the whole thing a lot more complicated to stage - so time's a factor here. Construction costs go up too.
If you want some links to the basics to catch up on, here's a starting point:
Re: 2 vs 4 tracks, yeah, I think most everyone agrees with you there - but didn't you just bring cost in as a concern? I believe the reason that anyone is proposing that (i.e. [url="https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/06/29/NS..."]the MBTA doing so here[/url]) is because it's cheaper, stated in this report to be half the price for tunneling.
Thank you for the links.
By Rob
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 5:11pm
Thank you for the links.
Cost? I didn't mention cost directly in this chain of comments, but I was addressing to scope & methods, which certainly factor into cost, yes.
I'm definitely glad that they're looking at cost of all alternatives, even ones I don't like. That's part of Impact Statements and Cost-Benefit Analysis which goes into proposals like this.
It may well be that four track isn't economically viable/justified at the start and two-track is. The crucial thing then would be to make sure that building two-track is done in such a way that doesn't physically preclude expanding to four-track later and doesn't add unnecessary cost to later expansion.
Discussed for years and Well-versed? Well, I've been reading here for a few years now and it's mostly occasional outcries of "build the link!", and one post in the last year which generated more back-and-forth - most of the same comments as today, in fact.
'Discussed here for years and readers well-versed in it' - unfortunately isn't a very high bar. After all, stuff like obeying traffic signs & signalling turns has been discussed here for years (much more frequently than NSRL) and readers are QUITE well-versed in the topic - yet peoples' comments reveal they still drive like $****!
Post Office move? I'm still waiting.
By issacg
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:27pm
For context, in my first job out of university, I worked on a series of projects in the "windswept wasteland" (which you all now know as the Seaport). It was the late 90s. We were idiots, hacks, fools, etc. for thinking that anyone would ever want to go down there ("and that's why we're not paying to put this expensive bus under D Street!"), but I digress.
I was slated to work on several more things that were contingent on the move of the Post Office. Same for my next job (through 2010).
Short and long of it: When Joe Moakley died in 2001, so did any real chance of the Post Office moving for the foreseeable future. "Stevie" Lynch has never been up to the task.
Can you imagine not being able to take the necessary measures to get the "cash-strapped" USPS (don't make me laugh with that BS pension requirement Congress imposed on it) to move off of some of the most valuable real estate in America, especially at this point in the real estate cycle?!?. Look at what the GE property just sold for on the other side of the Channel, and really, it's just un-fricken-believable and definitely inexcusable.
Yeah, I hear ya.
By whyaduck
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:47pm
It is really unfortunate that this move was not done when there was, well, will and more available land in Boston proper.
However, your point is well taken. I would like to think some creative minds could come up with a way to help the USPS reap some big bucks by moving their facility. I am just now sure where the heck they would go in the city since the powers that be decided to gentrify the Seaport. Although, probably not the best place for a mail facility. Rising tides and paper do not mix well.
I mean technically it's Pressley's district, not Lynch
By Cute Username
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 2:02pm
To be precise, as of the last redistricting, South Station and the post office is in Ayanna Pressley's (formerly Michael Capuano's) district, although it's right on the edge. Not that it actually matters whose district it's in.
They missed the chance to
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 2:51pm
They missed the chance to move City Hall down there when land was cheap and nobody wanted anything to do with the area, except maybe go as far as Jimmy's . The new City Hall would have acted like a magnet plus the vacated concrete monstrosity would be a bonanza to be developed , such a deal. But O Well , that's life.
I don't understand your
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:47pm
I don't understand your confusion. Congestion would be relieved by freeing up the tracks currently used for turning trains around and sending them to the nearby holding yards. Existing track capacity would be better utilized. Trains would be able to leave the station on the track on which they entered, and could be turned around at any point from the hub onward, instead of needing to do it as soon as they arrive.
If you're taking the train to South Station from the south or west, you could avoid going to North Station by getting off the train at South Station. I assume this is what you currently do.
Even if we set aside the major benefits of linking the two halves of the commuter rail network, this would be a viable plan to reduce rail congestion at the hubs. It may be more expensive than adding tracks to both stations, but it also may be more feasible given the Postal Service situation... plus, the other benefits we set aside. Station expansion has no other benefits.
Magoo sez
By MisterMagooForYoo
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 9:03am
We should all “link” hands in solidarity from North station to south station. Magoo.
The commuter rail sucks for
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 12:38pm
The commuter rail sucks for several reasons. Mostly due to the terrible schedules, poor reliability, and high fares. This can be fixed independently of the NSRL, way cheaper and faster.
I say lower the fares tomorrow. Next year, buy reliable off-the-shelf DMUs (and EMUs for Providence) and run them more frequently. In 2 years, electrify the busier lines. The NSRL can come after that.
How many trains per hour do other stub-end terminals support? I'm not convinced we need to expand South Station.
If we buy modern trains that can be turned quickly, a train from Providence to South Station can run back to Providence and solve the South Station/Widett parking problem almost as easily as it could run through the NSRL to Haverhill.
A far easier and better fix for the north-south problem would be improving the Orange Line to run every 3 minutes at rush hour, and every 5-6 minutes off-peak. This would help all of the 200,000 daily Orange Line riders, many of whom don't ride the Commuter Rail.
The new trains are coming. So is a new signal system, but it's unclear how much it will support improved frequencies, even though plenty of other cities do it. Some lines in Moscow run every 2 minutes. Passengers get angry if they have to wait 5 minutes for a train....at midnight.
Pages
Add comment