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
This speaks volumes about the
By anon
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 6:53pm
This speaks volumes about the vision and priorities of the Boston city council.
Easy to support things
By Waquiot
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 10:05pm
When you don’t have to pay for it. I’ve got a ton of great transportation ideas that could be done for under $50 billion.
Speaking of which, still waiting for Michelle Wu to explain how the fareless T will be financed.
Making the T free would be
By Kinopio
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 10:48pm
Making the T free would be nothing compared to all the handouts drivers get.
Great
By Waquiot
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 10:55pm
So again, how is the shortfall going to be made up? Thoughts and prayers or whatever you atheists do instead?
Raise the gas tax
By hux
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:07am
Raise the gas tax. It should have been indexed to inflation a long time ago.
Oh and also congestion pricing + increased fines and policing for moving and parking violations.
Really just raise the cost of everything associated with person vehicles. Owning, storing, and driving a personal vehicle is heavily subsidized, and really shouldn't be considering we know for a fact that exhaust is a huge contributor to climate change, the urban heat island effect, decreased air quality, and oh yea the death of countless pedestrians and cyclists.
It's time to take some drastic measures to #1 protect pedestrians and bikers #2 protect the environment #3 make drivers pay their fare share while also disincentivizing driving relative to public transit in general. Not everyone needs to drive as much as they do, and they especially wouldn't need to if our public transit system wasn't completely falling apart.
Dukakis has vision. Baker does not.
Raise the gas tax?!
By Jon Carry
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 6:12am
Raise the gas tax?! Great idea. We who drive to work because there is no public transportation of any kind have to pay for your convenience? Not a chance. And as far as Dukakis having 'vision'? If only he could have been governor, maybe then the North/South rail link could have been started.
Yeah
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 6:21am
Don't raise the gas tax to pay for better public transportation, because the lack of public transportation is what makes us have to drive so much!
You don't cover the true cost of driving, we subsidize it
By spin_o_rama
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 8:37am
Also....
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/du...
Oh and add in some congestion pricing to pay for it too because why not fund better public transit.
In his defense, he was only
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 9:04am
In his defense, he was only governor for 12 years (most of any Mass governor ever).
You have it backwards, cars are subsidized heavily right now.
By peter
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 9:29am
Currently non drivers subsidize drivers. All the taxes specific to drivers - vehicle excise, gas tax, tolls, etc, do not cover the costs of drivers. General taxes (like the income tax and property tax paid by non drivers) covers half of what it costs to provide you with roads.
Raising the gas tax would be start towards having drivers pay their fair share.
Your argument is faulty.
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:15pm
Your argument is faulty. What portion of people who pay "General taxes (like the income tax and property tax...)" also drive? I would be the majority. If there were no excise, sales or tolls your point would hold water - but it doesn't.
Hux. Wasting $13 Billion is not "Vision"
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:08pm
Dukakis needs to realize his term ended in '91. He needs to move on
uh
By hux
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 12:33pm
Have you been downtown to the Rose Kennedy Greenway or the waterfront? How about on the Zakim bridge? Or ever use the Ted Williams tunnel. His vision pretty drastically transformed the urban experience of the city for the better.
The city was completely disconnected from the waterfront by a huge elevated highway, and they actually wanted to add more via the Inner Belt project that Dukakis helped kill thank god.
$12.3 Billion to $21.5 billion according to Arup.
By anon
Thu, 08/01/2019 - 12:15pm
This project is an easy no-go decision.
Better North-South Rail Solution: Take The Orange. Save Billions
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:54pm
Get off at Back Bay. Take the Orange Line to North. Save the Commonwealth $10-15 Billion. For Old Colony / Fairmount to Fitchburg Riders. Get Off at South. Take the Red Line to Porter. Save the Commonwealth $10-15 Billion. The Remainder. Take Red-Orange. Save the Commonwealth $10-15 Billion
Building the NSRL
By GoSoxGo
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 10:27am
would relieve pressure from the central subway system by allowing people to remain on the commuter rail and not transfer to the subway, which is busiest between Back Bay and North Station on the Orange Line. The Red, Green and Orange would benefit by freeing some more available capacity.
If nothing is done, overcrowding will only get worse on the subway, which is stressed handling the current demand.
Yet another NSRL Myth
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 12:10pm
The T is struggling with declining ridership. One big chunk of revenue they rely on. Commuter rail to subway transfers. The NSRL kills off the need for the existing subways. The subways shutdown and you now have $13 billion in extra debt. Not a good plan.
Most daily commuter rail passengers
By GoSoxGo
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 1:06pm
have a monthly pass, which includes subway rides, so that is a non-issue.
"The NSRL kills off the need for the existing subways."
Um, no. Perhaps the Orange Line from Back Bay to North Station would be redundant if you are already on the Northeast Corridor or Worcester Line, but the four subway lines serve hundreds of thousands people daily.
It would be much cheaper, and
By anon
Thu, 08/01/2019 - 5:27pm
It would be much cheaper, and benefit far more people, to improve frequencies on the Orange Line.
buddy, the TRAINS ARE FULL.
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 11:42am
buddy, the TRAINS ARE FULL. downtown transfer points are FULL. somebody's going to get killed from the shoving and crowding. building red-blue is an important next step for this reason, but building the commuter rail connection is vital also!
That’s strange
By Waquiot
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 4:33pm
I have yet to hear a politician advocate any kind of gas tax hike, but there’s Wu and her crew, saying the T can get by with a revenue cut.
Do you guys know how the Big Dig was financed? If you don’t, ask someone from Metro West how it was.
Didn't we go over this before
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:16pm
Fares don't even make up a majority of the operational budget, let alone capital budget. Wu isn't an idiot and painting her as such with money out of thing air is ridiculous. She obviously wants to get people thinking of the idea, which has merit as pointed out the last time this came up, and funding would have to be worked out. Or, like the Big Dig, maybe Baker could do some creative funding like back in the old days.
As for your second point - funding came from the Fed and State government. The Big Dig has more than payed for itself, and benefited the entire state's economy (and tax base). What does WestMass and all the mavericks out there have to do with it?
Fares are a sizable part of the T's budget
By Waquiot
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 10:07am
But if you think it's doable, ask your boss to cut your salary by 30% and see how you make due. I suppose we can also say that when the local libertarians got a referendum on the ballot to abolish the income tax they were looking to spark a conversation on government waste and ways the government could be more efficient, but in the end it was a horrible idea.
So the Big Dig's funding came from "the Fed and State government." Any thoughts about how those levels of government raise the funds? I'll give you a few hints. The federal government has a dedicated trust fund that goes to their share of such projects. The state also has a trust fund that are dedicated to highway upkeep, and both come from the same overall sources. For the Big Dig, the state had a different means of raising funds, and it's kind of, sort of, like the fares the MBTA charges.
But if you think it's doable,
By bgl
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 4:48pm
Again, you are better than to compare budgets at the macro government level to an individual's. It is disingenuous and, quite frankly, moronic. Literally no one is saying cut fares and not replace it. Also, for the record, I would be just fine with a 30% salary cut - I make quite a bit and my income also consists of various income properties and investments.
Ah another attempt at being condescending, and yet, you end up being the only one who sounds like an idiot that doesn't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Thanks, Captain Obvious, though, for explaining something that has little to do with what I commented.
People are literally saying let's cut fares
By Waquiot
Thu, 08/01/2019 - 2:13pm
And they are not proposing any funding source to replace the fares, hence my annoyance at the proposal. If the proposal was to cut fares and make up the shortfall from some other funding source, at least it would be worth discussing. But since state government can magically cut revenue sources without concern for the consequences, I assume you voted for the Libertarian Party ballot question to abolish the state income tax, right? Same difference to me.
I weep for this country that across the ideological spectrum there has been an embrace of perpetual budget deficits, but since state and local government cannot do so, I might just be griping for the sake of my sanity.
Fuel efficiency is killing off any future gas tax benefit
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 12:05pm
Try again
Take the hit and stop all the
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:28pm
Take the hit and stop all the bickering and fantasy that there is a golden goose. Make a Mass state tax surcharge for a defined period of time , with the revenue explicitly dedicated to MBTA fixes and be done with it.
if you’re over 40, chances
By berkleealum
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 6:50am
if you’re over 40, chances are you won’t be paying for it either.
note: it’s also really easy to just shoot ideas down just because wE cAN’t PaY fOR tHaT.
Pay
By BostonDog
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 9:49am
For some strange reason they are fine with deficit spending if it's for tax cuts or military purposes but if it's for any social improvement, well, that would fiscally irresponsible.
If you can’t afford something, don’t do it
By Waquiot
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 4:35pm
I thought that was the mantra of the No Olympics movement.
I guess I’m old fashioned thinking that you need a funding source to do something. Maybe I’ll go buy a Tesla. I mean, I can’t afford it, but you guys say that’s okay.
The issue is that what we can
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 6:41pm
The issue is that what we can and can't afford seems to be quite subjective. Setting aside discussions about whether the federal government can "afford" our past, present, and future military spending, the Massachusetts government is probably much more able to afford large capital projects like the NSRL than people who scream "HOW WILL WE PAY FOR THIS" would suggest.
Such people tend to assume that new taxes are not a possibility, probably due to their own personal opposition to any new taxes. They also tend to assume that borrowing money to do it is irresponsible, and then make a specious comparison to household finances, even though borrowing against future economic growth is one of the main ways governments finance big projects worldwide.
The opposition to the Olympics wasn't based on "we can't afford it!", it was "the economic benefits they're trying to sell us on aren't real, so we should not borrow money against them, and without that the whole project is ridiculous."
You are better than this
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:18pm
Subpar comment. Equating personal/household finances to that of large scale government (or even business) is as lazy and disingenuous as one can get. BTW, unlike you Tesla, which is not an investment at all and depreciates, investment in infrastructure tends to payoff in the end with increased commerce/business/tax revenue.
lol okay dr. economics.
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 11:44am
lol okay dr. economics.
please, please, for the love of god, can we get some people in here who understand that government and personal household finances do - AND MUST - operate under different principles??
But they don't
By Waquiot
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 2:38pm
The essence of the comparison is the same. If you don't have the means on hand to purchase something (be it an automobile or the work on a construction firm) you have to borrow to complete the transaction. If you don't have the ability to create money, you need to prove to the lenders that their loan will be paid back. If you borrow beyond your means, your credit gets tainted to the extent that you will have to borrow at higher interest rates. Debt at high interest rates constrains one's abilities and eventually impacts one's ability to provide the essentials. Also, though sometimes it is necessary, it is not good to go into debt to handle your day-to-day financial needs. That describes personal and governmental debt. I mean, if you think the comparison isn't apt, feel free to point out my failings.
In the end, the City of Boston, as a government, is not going to be contributing a penny to this project, so it is easy for the City Council to say that it should be done. If this project involved the City of Boston issuing the bonds to pay for this, they'd be singing a different tune.
Foodie Thrillist and The Debt Duke Agree on North-South Rail
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 2:12pm
Lets spend 13 billion dollars so a few people can get to Maine quicker. Brilliant! Both Thrillist and Dukakis don't have a clue. When they bring up London as a NSRL model; they don't realize the differences between Liverpool and Portland, Maine, nor the pre-Brexit politics behind the British rail plan. They need to leave transportation to the experts
Ridiculously uninformed comment.
By greenlinetobrooklyn
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 1:16pm
If you believe this is the impetus for the NSRL, you are dead wrong.
Nobody is championing the NSRL for quicker Maine to DC trips. The NSRL is about relieving capacity on the central subway, while allowing for shorter headways on the regular commuter rail lines.
Keep your uninformed comments to yourself.
Yes Stupidity Bos ALREADY HAS A NSRL. Its called the ORANGE LINE
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:05pm
The Orange Line is a modern standard gauge tunnel. Boston's commuter rail is a standard gauge system. There are vehicles worldwide that can RUN ON BOTH. You can link the Orange and CR tracks east of Back Bay Station and north of Community College. Stop the insanity Boston CC. Look at what's out there, not at what's forced on you by local advocates.
Have you alerted the feds?
By adamg
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 8:50pm
Because they frown on subways and commuter rail trains sharing tracks. Whether they have a valid reason or not is another matter, but it's not like the T could just do that.
California and Texas are experimenting with track share, hybrids
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 12:28pm
Florida is trying it as well. Commuter cars that resemble the Orange and Red vehicles are running side by side with traditional freight. Meanwhile. Boston is one of the few major metros without a hybrid system between traditional subways and commuter rail. (BART, PATH, DC Metro, etc.) You will likely see a one seat ride between say Rozzie and Chelsea via Orange before you see another tunnel running under Boston
The Braintree branch is a
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 4:51pm
The Braintree branch is a subway/commuter rail hybrid. So is the Green Line D.
But agreed that we should do more of it.
Where along the Braintree branch?
By boo_urns
Thu, 08/01/2019 - 10:40am
Are you saying that it's built for hybrid, even though they have their own dedicated tracks? I've never seen CR trains run on any stretch of red line tracks between Braintree and JFK, including the Neponset River Bridge (that's double tracked on the CR line, too), so that'd be interesting to hear.
Orange, Red, Mattapan, CR, FR all interface from time to time
By anon
Thu, 08/01/2019 - 12:26pm
Despite the ranting from a few on this page, these systems do indeed interface. Typically in yards under and near stations. Sometimes you'll even see the occasional CR or FR vehicle rolling by Red and Mattapan vehicles. Speed is minimal. The FRA has a clamp on interface, but under both Obama and Trump that clamp has loosened. More FRA compliant vehicles are coming out that fall between typical subway and commuter cars. They're built for mixed traffic at higher speeds.
No.
By bgl
Fri, 08/02/2019 - 1:18am
Unless it was back in the day delivering Orange rolling stock by rail, it doesn't happen. There is also absolutely nothing rolling past a Mattapan PCC on the Mattapan Line in terms of freight or commuter rail. There is no freight or CR rolling stock rolling past any of the other lines either unless they are on completely separated/not connected tracks that.
There has been no lighting of mixing light or subway traffic with FRA compliant rail. The FRA has approved waivers for DMUs/EMUs, which are not either light rail or subway rolling stock and are designed to operate on railways. They aren't new either - the old budd liners are examples of them. Basically rail cars that meet FRA specs that are self propelled vs push/pull. Rapid transit and railroad traffic doesn't mix.
Lol
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:24pm
Track gauge is nothing. The loading gauge of the orange and CR is completely off - unless you think redoing every single platform and tunnel to somehow fit double decker commuter rail trains is viable. Then, of course, we would have to buy an entirely new Orange Line fleet (right after we just did that) to fit the new loading gauge, and, retrofit all of the tunnels with a shit ton of air movement for the commuter rail diesels. Oh, and an entirely new signaling system that can support both the subway and commuter rail at the same time.
And, after all that, it still won't work as the FRA sure as shit isn't going to allow locomotives and third rail subway on the same track. Furthermore, it takes the connection at South Station out of the equation is which one of the biggest job centers/connections into the Seaport, Downtown, Leather District, etc.
So, speaking of stupidity....
BGL: You should learn about gauge. Study systems like P-A-T-H
By anon
Mon, 08/05/2019 - 4:43pm
It sounds like you have a limited understand of gauge. I don't see anyone who is proposing ramming commuter rail trains into subway tunnels. That's absurd. However, the opposite motion: light(er) rail vehicles on commuter rail tracks: is a thing in Boston - Riverside Green Line, Mattapan Line, and on. Shared tracks is still foreign to Mass. There are systems in the US that bridge the gap between subways and commuter rail along shared tracks. Take for example P-A-T-H in NY-NJ. The system resembles a subway in Manhattan and commuter rail in Jersey. It runs into shared track moments and is expanding into the Northeast Corridor
You need FRA approval. Which is easier said than done
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 12:11pm
However under the current administration, FRA regs are diminishing.
Just put all the Casino
By anon
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 8:17pm
Just put all the Casino revenue into it. The Commonwealth loves throwing money down holes. Unlike the others this one would be useful.
Start with the horse racing fund
By Parkwayne
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 7:41am
That's just insiders self-dealing and a total waste of revenue.
For the love of God
By anon
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 8:58pm
Can we fix the MBTA first before we start the little dig.
This would be part of fixing
By Kinopio
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 10:56pm
This would be part of fixing it. The stations should have been connected decades ago. This is fixing an old mistake.
Promised mitigation
By hux
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:03am
Really it should be mandatory considering it was already promised as part of the Big Dig.
Promised?
By Rob
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 4:13pm
Promised?
Suggested, yes.
Wanted, yes.
But - promised? Was it ever really promised or included, even to the degree that, oh... restore Green Line to Arborway was "promised"?
Yes
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:26pm
It was included in the plans and was provisioned for in the current build. It, however, like a dedicated Silver Line tunnel to the airport, was first on the chopping block. AFIAK, though, unlike the E to Forest Hills, it wasn't legally mandated.
Adding $13 bil in debt to the current $20 bil is not "fixing it"
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:12pm
Admitting the Big Dig and its forced mitigation was a massive failure is the first step in a long journey towards fixing Boston transportation.
?
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:27pm
The Big Dig by any measure has been a huge success, as has most of the MBTA mitigation (6 car blue line trains, GLX, Old Colony restoration, etc). What wasn't that successful was how the funding of said mitigation was handled.
You can't fix it without modernizing it
By Dave in Westie
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 9:01am
This is code for I never want this done. The current commuter rail system has been band-aided with cheap fixes for far too long. We're clearly at a point where we can't duct tape and chewing gum our way to a more reliable system
When I read comments like this I see an excuse to never fix anything, at least be honest.
The MBTA's diesels fail 160x
By anon
Wed, 07/31/2019 - 4:48pm
The MBTA's diesels fail 160x as often as the LIRR's electric trains.
Waiting for Baker? That’s a
By Homer Bedloe
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 9:10pm
Waiting for Baker? That’s a laugh. Baker does NOTHING until he is sure that if the shit hits the fan none of it will land on him. He’s not a leader, he’s a follower.
Awesome reporting that I hope
By Carty
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 8:09am
Awesome reporting that I hope I never take for granted, thank you Adam
It's the Duke's thing
By Gary C
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 8:45am
I was in Brookline just outside Putterham Circle a couple months ago and the car in front of me at the red light had a "North South Rail Link" bumper sticker. I thought, that's odd, I wonder if that's Dukakis? I pulled up and sure enough it was him.
I like Mike.
By whyaduck
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:39am
However, one of the biggest and short sighted mistakes was made when they were redoing South Station and the decision was to remove train tracks.
We still have a problem with delayed trains at South Station because of the lack of available tracks.
Mike has been touting his north-south train link for quite some time now. I understand that expansion is attractive. However, as someone who is probably going to use South Station till I retire, I do not know how focusing on the north-south link is going to help (it has not been made clear to me) the congestion at South Station with the lack of train tracks. One could assume that more trains could be diverted (?) to North Station. But that, in itself is weird. If I want to arrive at South Station, I do not want to have to go to North Station.
Perhaps I am missing something.
As this 2014 Globe article says:
"But Dukakis doesn’t support a plan being pushed by Patrick to expand the station that now bears the former governor’s name. Massachusetts Department of Transportation officials say that adding more tracks to the busy hub — and expanding the station into the post office’s Fort Point Channel property — would improve rail service by relieving congestion.
Instead, he favors a decades-old proposal to create a North-South rail link to connect North and South stations."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/10/south...
And I understand that the Post Office may not want to move but to give up on moving the facility is something that should not be given up on.
I believe the removal of train tracks...
By Ward8Mahatma
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:13pm
...was primarily due to the expansion of the South Postal Annex, as it used to be called (and might still be, for all I know). I also seem to recall that, at the time, there was talk of moving the facility to Fan Pier instead, but the PO was set on remaining where it was even when moving mail by rail was no longer the status quo.
Yes, you are correct.
By whyaduck
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:46pm
n/t
I think the way it helps
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 12:20pm
Is the part where you need fewer tracks - and fewer trains - if all the trains don't have to stop and turn around at the same place.
As it is now, a train comes in - let's say, a Wickford Junction train. That train then stops, and parks, at South Station until it goes back out the same way - maybe to Wickford Station, maybe it gets reassigned, say to Worcester.
A source of the backup, and shortage of tracks, at South Station is that the tracks are being occupied by parked trains.
With a North/South link, the Wickford Junction train would be able to continue on after stopping at South Station, perhaps stop at a new Central Station, and at North Station, before it goes North to, say, Lowell or Haverhill.
The time the train spent sitting occupying a track without moving would be reduced, and each train that went into South Station would also be a train that went out of North Station, and vice versa, so the rails would have more effective capacity.
Your analysis seems reasonable.
By whyaduck
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:41pm
I wonder though even with the idea that some of the trains will go forward as you suggest, there is still a heck of a lot of train traffic into South Station not just the commuter rail trains but Amtrak. Unless we are going to extend Amtrak service to the North, along with the new installation of electrical wires for the ACELA, I am not sure how much of a punch moving a few trains to North Station will help with the bottlenecks.
I guess I can leave that up to the folks that get paid to analyze this sort of thing.
Most versions of the NSRL
By anon
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 1:53pm
Most versions of the NSRL plans I've encountered include Amtrak, completing single-seat Northeast Corridor service from Portland to Washington.
Probably not
By bgl
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 11:30pm
At least not without an engine change to diesel somewhere on the north side to continue to Portland - don't think Amtrak is in any hurry to electrify the Downeaster.
The analysis has been done
By Mjolnir
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 2:24pm
The complexity of building the tunnel would be magnified dramatically by needing to install the blower/vent infrastructure for diesel fumes, so electrification of the system is required for the NSRL. The good news is that this has other unrelated benefits for the CR system, such as much more reliable and faster-accelerating engines, as well as less pollution in the communities around the tracks. Electrification of the existing system would be an improvement to the CR even without the NSRL, and the two improvements compound upon each other. Faster trains with shorter dwells mean you can run more frequent service, turning the CR into an intercity regional rail system akin to what's common in Europe or Asia.
This also does mean that Amtrak could in fact run through the city, instead of having some northern trains terminate at North Station and the NEC terminate at South Station. Single-ride from VA to ME!
Thank you.
By whyaduck
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 2:50pm
Well, it really sounds wonderful. But it is going to cost (did someone say "billions?") And, unfortunately, and although it is difficult to believe, public transportation betterment appears not a high priority up on the Hill. So unless someone can light some fires under some collective butts, I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Amtrak already goes north
By necturus
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 3:58pm
Amtrak runs Downeaster trains between North Station and Brunswick, Maine, five times a day,
Pages
Add comment