Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NRSL looks good, but I chose the Fairmount line as having higher priority only because of Boston's density. I'm pretty sure that the commuter rail lines get a decent amount of people that utilize the system during rush hour, but with the trends of people moving from suburbia to cities, it seems like the trend should be to building a few more rapid transit lines within the immediate urban area.
<snip>
Finally, all good intentions aside for linking North and South Stations, the only logical link for the NE corridor would be to ME from NYC. It wouldn't make any sense to bring back Montreal service to Boston and extend that service into NYC, especially when NYC already has service to Montreal via Penn Station and Grand central Terminal. I'm not slamming the NSRL, but I'm also looking at the cons as well and from my vantage point, it looks like the NSRL can benefit the MBTA Commuter Rail, but Amtrak service is a different animal, and I suspect that Mainers would rather take the plane to NYC or even drive than take rail, even if the NSRL was built.
I think the problem is that you're completely unfamiliar with Boston and, frankly, don't have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to the specifics of the infrastructure and dynamic of the region. Like no clue. And instead taking a cue to maybe do a little more homework before preaching to an entire region that you don't know anything about, you dismiss and ignore the people who point out how absurd some of what you're proposing is.
For example, you propose a cut and cover tunnel under Atlantic Avenue for your fantasy Fairmount extension. It's literally impossible to do that (which I already told you elsewhere). Why is it impossible? Because Atlantic Avenue (and all of the surface roads along the Rose Kennedy Greenway) already has the I-93 tunnel network (ramps, splits, merges, etc.) directly beneath the surface. It's so close to the surface in fact, that there were concerns in the early days that roots from trees planted on the surface of the Greenway would pose threats to the tunnel ceiling as they grew. So like I said in an early post, the only way to complete your fantasy extension through downtown is a deep bore tunnel under I-93, the NSRL, the Red Line, the Blue Line, the Callahan and Sumner Tunnels, and all sorts of utility infrastructure which is prohibitively expensive (and potentially not even possible). Full stop. Yet you continue to tell all of us how you believe it's possible (like that's a strong argument) and how if we don't agree with you then we're just "anti-transit." This is basic stuff, and it's hard to take you seriously if you don't recognize that.
And again, your arguments re: the NSRL are rooted in ignorance of the system and region. It is, objectively, a much more vital project than your fantasy proposal for the region and beyond.
Locally, it directly connects two of Boston's most important transit hubs at North and South Station. Many people have to transfer between the two (or commute to one and work near the other) and there's no direct connection. The lack of connectivity is a deciding factor in many of the relocation threads right here on CD forums.
Regionally, it connects the northern and southern halves of our fragmented commuter rail network.
Not only does this help for mobility of people (being able to take trains from north of the city to south of the city), it helps for equipment mobility and reduces the need to waste valuable real estate on redundant rail yards (currently, North and South sections need their own maintenance facilities, layover yards, etc.).
It also immediately improves capacity at South Station and North Station since those stations will no longer be dead ends (requiring switching and reversing) which means fewer delays and better frequencies on all services.
Beyond Eastern MA, it allows for the extension of of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (as well as fewer delays) to Portland and potentially Manchester/Concord. There are nearly 1,000,000 people in Southern ME and NH who would benefit from Northeast Corridor connectivity and the missing link is a 1 mile tunnel under downtown Boston. This also doesn't need to be Acela service to greatly benefit the region.
And even though it's infinitely more plausible and beneficial than your silly Fairmount Line conversion/extension, the NRSL is still not really close to reality. It's an extremely expensive project (though not nearly as expensive as what you're suggesting for the Fairmount) and even with better funding potential (there are multiple state and Federal stakeholders who benefit from NSRL service whereas Fairmount is almost exclusively Boston), it's an extremely difficult sell. Especially when the MBTA is struggling to handle its existing infrastructure. So no, on no planet is your crayon-drawn Fairmount Extension a better bet for Boston than the NSRL, but by all means, keep telling us how we're all wrong and "anti-transit" because we're calling BS on what you're trying to pitch.
I think the problem is that you're completely unfamiliar with Boston and, frankly, don't have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to the specifics of the infrastructure and dynamic of the region. Like no clue. And instead taking a cue to maybe do a little more homework before preaching to an entire region that you don't know anything about, you dismiss and ignore the people who point out how absurd some of what you're proposing is.
For example, you propose a cut and cover tunnel under Atlantic Avenue for your fantasy Fairmount extension. It's literally impossible to do that (which I already told you elsewhere). Why is it impossible? Because Atlantic Avenue (and all of the surface roads along the Rose Kennedy Greenway) already has the I-93 tunnel network (ramps, splits, merges, etc.) directly beneath the surface. It's so close to the surface in fact, that there were concerns in the early days that roots from trees planted on the surface of the Greenway would pose threats to the tunnel ceiling as they grew. So like I said in an early post, the only way to complete your fantasy extension through downtown is a deep bore tunnel under I-93, the NSRL, the Red Line, the Blue Line, the Callahan and Sumner Tunnels, and all sorts of utility infrastructure which is prohibitively expensive (and potentially not even possible). Full stop. Yet you continue to tell all of us how you believe it's possible (like that's a strong argument) and how if we don't agree with you then we're just "anti-transit." This is basic stuff, and it's hard to take you seriously if you don't recognize that.
When I proposed cut-and-cover, I was looking at the cost in comparison to boring, which is much more expensive than cut-and-cover. If boring is the way in order to still have another subway line, then that's the way to go. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news here, but I didn't want to come here saying that Boston has a great transportation neither, hence I felt that the only way to improve mass transit in the Boston area is to expand the T as well as to place a new subway line.
I'll take it from you in that I don't know the city and I'll accept it, but when Boston grows to 1 million plus people and you're using the same line as Boston has w/o increasing the capacity of the train sets, and even adding new lines, then Bostonians can't complain about why the T has subpar service (meaning 40-50 year old trains, leaking ceilings, malfunctioning escalators and elevators, loose tiles, eroding rails and ties, and bad customer service and maintenance) if you're running the T like it's the 1970's when the city has changed greatly.
I'll take back the Fairmount Line and now consider not expanding Boston's T as it is for 100+ years and accept it while the city grows to 1 million people (which will eventually happen). That means not considering the suggested expansions (a majority w/ the exception to the Saugus proposal which I didn't make nor propose, BTW), not taking into consideration the NSRL for 100+ years, and leaving the subway and light rail system the same way as it it in the present. Maybe I did too much just to suggest one line proposal, but you guys maybe deserve the system you wish for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
And again, your arguments re: the NSRL are rooted in ignorance of the system and region. It is, objectively, a much more vital project than your fantasy proposal for the region and beyond.
Locally, it directly connects two of Boston's most important transit hubs at North and South Station. Many people have to transfer between the two (or commute to one and work near the other) and there's no direct connection. The lack of connectivity is a deciding factor in many of the relocation threads right here on CD forums.
Regionally, it connects the northern and southern halves of our fragmented commuter rail network.
Not only does this help for mobility of people (being able to take trains from north of the city to south of the city), it helps for equipment mobility and reduces the need to waste valuable real estate on redundant rail yards (currently, North and South sections need their own maintenance facilities, layover yards, etc.).
It also immediately improves capacity at South Station and North Station since those stations will no longer be dead ends (requiring switching and reversing) which means fewer delays and better frequencies on all services.
Beyond Eastern MA, it allows for the extension of of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (as well as fewer delays) to Portland and potentially Manchester/Concord. There are nearly 1,000,000 people in Southern ME and NH who would benefit from Northeast Corridor connectivity and the missing link is a 1 mile tunnel under downtown Boston. This also doesn't need to be Acela service to greatly benefit the region.
I've explained this in posts, and the current train stock for the Downeaster is low speed compared to the now to be retired Acela and the new Avella Liberty trains sets. In 2018, the Downeaster carried 551,038 passengers, that's an average of 1,510 who use the Downeaster service daily, a small drop from the 1 million people in Southern ME & NH. And I assume that an overwhelmingly majority of Downeaster commuters more than likely will go to Boston for work, play, and commerce and only a tiny fraction will go further south to RI, CT, NY, etc.
NYC is already improving it's commuter rail system by connecting Metro North to Penn Station while NY is looking into connecting Grand Central Terminal to the LIRR system. Albeit, I don't believe that the Grand Central link is necessary, I still do commend NY for improving connectivity. The same goes for my view for the NSRL in that I don't believe it's necessary, even though many here beg to differ. We can agree to disagree, but one common ground that we have is that we all want Boston's transit system to improve, but we all have different ideas on how to do so.
The Fairmount Line has been proposed as a subway since the 2000s last time I checked, and I have nothing to do with that proposal. If people don't want the line, then that's what MA wants, but now that you have the Orange line shutdown, and even after repairs, you still have malfunctioning escalators and elevators, and the maintenance crew has had to enact a "slow zone" meaning that trains, on average, now have a waiting time of 15 min. That's too long, and wouldn't it make any sense to open up the Fairmount and Needham commuter lines to city residents and charge them the same fare as the subway lines ($2.50), while Needham residents can pay $3 each way?
The Red Line is too far east for certain passengers unless you live in Dorchester or Mattapan, and Dudley Station is closer to the Orange Line than the Red Line, considering since the Orange Line used to run above Dudley (now a bus station). We now accept that fact that we don't need another subway line, that area between the Orange & Red Lines is the biggest gulf of a lack of subway coverage in all of the immediate Boston area. I wish we had some people here from Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, and Hyde Park to chime in this conversation because it looks pretty biased from people not from those areas and from the suburbs. I'm curious to know where exactly in the Boston area many people live at because I don't want to believe the true reason why the Fairmount Line is getting shot down and I don't even want to even say the term, but we'll accept that the T doesn't need any new expansions and leave the T as it is for a very long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
And even though it's infinitely more plausible and beneficial than your silly Fairmount Line conversion/extension, the NRSL is still not really close to reality. It's an extremely expensive project (though not nearly as expensive as what you're suggesting for the Fairmount) and even with better funding potential (there are multiple state and Federal stakeholders who benefit from NSRL service whereas Fairmount is almost exclusively Boston), it's an extremely difficult sell. Especially when the MBTA is struggling to handle its existing infrastructure. So no, on no planet is your crayon-drawn Fairmount Extension a better bet for Boston than the NSRL, but by all means, keep telling us how we're all wrong and "anti-transit" because we're calling BS on what you're trying to pitch.
The Fairmount has been talked about since 2000s and I still want to know what's so silly about it? If it's BS, then I guess it's also BS to tout that the NSRL will be a shovel ready package, especially since it should've been built at the same time the Big Dig was built. I don't know too many people in NY or Philadelphia and beyond who will really go to ME and NY like that on a low-speed train.
Most people from Phialdelphia will go to NY and a smaller minority to Boston. Not many people from Philadelphia, or even DC will talk about heading to ME or NH via rail not because there's no rail service directly to ME, but because ME and NH isn't talked about in NY, Philadelphia, and DC. I've heard a lot of people talking about going to VT for skiing, and I've heard people talking about venturing out to Montreal (which sorely needs HSR from Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston), but I haven't heard many people talking about heading all the way to ME.
The funding is getting harder to obtain, and with the Federal Reserve printing much more money in circulation than they can handle, that's only going to increase the costs of steel, concrete, and other materials, and once the costs of materials rise, the NSRL is going to be less realistic. I'd rather maintain (and improve) the line (Fairmount, improvements costing $35 million in 2017 or $42.5 million w/o overruns, and possibly up to $1 billion for a subway conversion and new stations) that's available than propose and lobby for a line that should've been built when the Big Dig was being built, only to not build it and ask for yet another expensive amount ($8 billion in 2007 would be about $16 billion in 2023 w/o overruns) just to run regular speed trains (not HSR) to Hampton NH, Portsmouth, NH, all the way to Portland and Bangor. Good luck convincing the rest of the country to pay for the Big Dig 2 for the commuter rail because I don't believe the taxpayers in the South, the Midwest, and the Heartland will want to use $16 billion to connect a one mile link, especially with inflation going through the roof. I doubt it happens again because Tip O'Neill is dead!
Most people there arent aware of possible electrification and subway service. Those that are aware of that possibility are pretty worried about it accelerating gentrification in the area.
Franklin should remain commuter rail because it's a "long haul" line while Readville, since it's with the city of Boston, is a "short haul" line. I'd rather see Fairmount line as a heavy rail than light metro. I also believe that everything that's light rail isn't the best option. Boston is a big enough city that can still support a few more heavy rail lines within the city.
The NRSL looks good, but I chose the Fairmount line as having higher priority only because of Boston's density. I'm pretty sure that the commuter rail lines get a decent amount of people that utilize the system during rush hour, but with the trends of people moving from suburbia to cities, it seems like the trend should be to building a few more rapid transit lines within the immediate urban area.
First, what the federal government needs to do is to stop printing so many dollars and dumping it into circulation, which is actually the reason why everything from steel to concrete to electric wiring is going through the roof. We can all blame the Illuminati and the Rothschilds for the inflation, but that's another topic, another thread, and another forum if you ask me.
So far, according to the MBTA Commuter Rail Map, there's up to 6 rail services radiating form North Station, while there's up to 10 (12 once the Fall River and New Bedford services come up and running). The problem with the link is that if you was able to finally connect North and South Stations with the NSRL, in South Station, you'd have 6 lines which would make the full North-South route from the suburbs, but 4 lines would be left out of the link unless you would add all of the 4 and allow them to travel up north.
What Philadelphia did was SEPTA was able to create up to 7 lines with the old Pennsylvania & Reading Railroad branches and connect then to make one seamless regional rail system. Had you left rail service to West Chester, more than likely, you would've had 8 lines, but SEPTA practically ruined the regional rail several years back by truncating what was a fine regional rail system by ending the round trips and instead ending the service at either 30th St or Temple University, which has taken away the effectiveness of the Center City Commuter Connection, as well as made a decent regional rail system into a boondoggle of a system. Hence the reason why I have no faith in SEPTA in ever reaching greatness as a transit agency,
I never thought that the purpose of the NSRL was to connect the Blue Line to the commuter rail and Amtrak system. There are some subway lines in NYC that don't have commuter rail connection in their downtowns such as the L train and the G train, which doesn't even go downtown or midtown. I'd rather have the bypass directly from North to South Stations than open up another station at Gov't Center.
This is the reason why I favored the Fairmount Line to go from South Station to nearby North Station. It can be confusing to allocate where you want to place different lines, and Boston doesn't really need a lot of transit lines due to it's relatively smaller size as a city, but it can make up for it by adding more cars to make 8 to 10 car train sets and if the T stations need to be extended, so be it.
The NSRL should be a direct rail ink, meaning no station in between the link, and it has to be underground. Not sure how the operating costs factors in here, but I'm a little sentimental about losing South Station as a full time terminal (which it can still can be), and even if the rail link is built, it's more of a benefit for the commuter rail system than it can be for Amtrak.
North of Boston, how many people take the Downeaster train from ME to Boston? There's up to five trains that run to and ME daily and I'm sure Mainers use the Downeaster for a lot of reasons (commuting, shopping, leisure, etc.) but Maine does't have HSR service, and while the NSRL sounds good, I also believe that the real reason why North and South Stations are both terminals is because NYC has service to Montreal, Buffalo, Boston, and Philadelphia, while Boston, which is the northeastern most city in America, has direct connections to NYC, Albany, Maine, and Montreal.
There's no real major American city north of Boston and the only city north of Boston is Montreal. Northeast of Boston is Halifax. Within America is ME, and ME doesn't have a major city (200K) or even a mid size city (100K+) that can really garner having HSR. If ME had a city like Manchester, NH, or Providence, RI, then I'd see HSR as a priority for ME, but ME isn't growing at a high rate, and while having the Downeaster is good for ME, there's no real major city that can really fully support HSR in ME like that.
Finally, all good intentions aside for linking North and South Stations, the only logical link for the NE corridor would be to ME from NYC. It wouldn't make any sense to bring back Montreal service to Boston and extend that service into NYC, especially when NYC already has service to Montreal via Penn Station and Grand central Terminal. I'm not slamming the NSRL, but I'm also looking at the cons as well and from my vantage point, it looks like the NSRL can benefit the MBTA Commuter Rail, but Amtrak service is a different animal, and I suspect that Mainers would rather take the plane to NYC or even drive than take rail, even if the NSRL was built.
The dirt box is nice, but I stand by saying that if there was priority of extending rail service from South Station to ME, than the rail link should've been built at the same time the Bid Dig was being built. Now that there's no rail link, I doubt that the rail link ever gets built until ME explodes in population to the point where Bangor and Portland start to become mid sized cities, and ME gets 4 congressional districts. It's all about how many people ME can attract, and the only people moving to ME are refugees. ME natives are moving out of state for brighter opportunities. And that's not really helping ME's prospects in the long term. This isn't slamming ME, but it is what it is and if ME was a bigger state, we'd be singing a different tune as far as HSR goes!
As fro Cummins Hwy, The 30 bus suits it fine. If the Ashmont-Mattapan trolley line were extended from Mattapan to Roslindale, it would be Boston's version of the G line in NYC. People will use it, but it's not going to have the same ridership as the other lines in Boston and it's just best to leave Cummins Hwy fo surface transit. I wouldn't even waste taxpayer money on a tunnel or an at-grade line in Hyde Park or Roslindale, it's best to either convert a rail line into a subway (Fairmount), extend the Green Line or even extend BRT along Hyde Park Ave, Washington St, Dorchester Ave, and Blue Hill Ave than extend the AM line.
Fairmount being a long haul line doesn't really mean much. It's about 9 miles from Readville to South Station and the stations are placed for the most part fairly close together. Readville may not have much population density around it itself, but it's ostensibly a good site or a transfer point from MBTA Commuter Rail and the other stations do have good density. I think heavy rail / light rail doesn't make a huge amount of difference so much as it's mostly grade-separated and can have high frequency.
I don't think there should be a choosing of NSRL and Fairmount line conversion to rapid transit--they should instead be done in tandem as part of a larger regional plan. The NSRL has a slight issue in that a lot more feeds into South Station than North Station so the balancing act there is a bit tricky. Taking the Fairmount Line and potentially the Franklin line out of the proposed NSRL-enabled RER/S-Bahn system would go a long way towards balancing that, and potentially having some of the east-west lines feeding into North Station first rather than South Station.
NSRL line having at least one in-fill station downtown is probably a good idea. It's attractive to not include that in terms of less build-out and a potentially faster transit through downtown, but then you also lose that additional utility value of more connections and an important trunk line to use as essentially another rapid transit line and backbone of the system. Examples of that are the Passante in Milan and the existing Paris RER and various German city S-Bahn systems. They work as well as they do because in the densest part of the city there are more closely spaced stops so they offer one-seat rides and the transfer points are more numerous so as to not overload a very limited number of transfer points. It also does not need to be an exclusive one or the other solution. S-Bahn systems often have other regional and intercity lines use the tracks and stations, but not stopping at every single one of the S-Bahn stations. You can easily do this by doing a four-track system where there is essentially a local/express paradigm where Amtrak and express train stops do *not* stop at every station, but instead pass S-Bahn local services at those stations. This is why the proposal usually has this as a four-track rather than double track.
I also think there's perhaps a misunderstanding of what the primary benefit of the North South Rail Link is. I listed things down in rough order of importance and by far the most important benefit is that it essentially brings rapid transit or almost rapid transit frequencies to a massive chunk of the Boston metropolitan area. It's important to keep in mind that this is mostly a massive benefit for the local region as through-running operations and the expansion in the number of potential single seat rides or reduced number of transfers for transit within the region is the main benefit. Longer distance trains to Maine, New Hampshire, maaaybe Montreal are beneficiaries of this as well, but they are a small fraction of the projected total ridership that would be using the link. You're certainly not running 24-30 trains per hour on each set of tracks to get to Maine. Instead, the intent is to have far greater capacity and number of single-seat or single transfer rides from within the metropolitan area. Remember, the terminal berths can't handle a much higher increase in MBTA Commuter Rail frequency because going into an interlocking to terminal berths and then backing out through that same interlocking is a very inefficient operation. Eliminating that inefficiency and netting a greater number of single-seat service patterns (or at least the elimination of at least one transfer) for people living along these lines and at far higher frequencies so as to be useful like rapid transit is by far the primary benefit.
And yea, this probably should have started alongside the Big Dig. Having the clean dirt box so as to not need utility relocation for most of the main trunk is nice, but it would have been much nicer to have started with the construction of that way. It would have been even nicer had this been done even earlier prior to even the building of the original highway. That's not what happened, but that doesn't preclude this from being a good idea now.
No one said the Mattapan trolley is going to have a higher ridership than rapid transit lines in existence. I only said that a connection is doable and preferable to make the transfers easier and can probably be done for a relatively low cost. That being said, I don't think it needs to be a priority--only that if Fairmount Line does turn into frequent rapid transit service, whether it's as heavy or light rail, a more direct connection would be more useful.
I think the more interesting question for me is that if the Fairmount line, and maybe the Franklin line along with it, gets converted to rapid transit outside of the RER/S-Bahn system and not utilizing the NSRL for that, how should the line proceed once near South Station though that's obviously something that'll take a while before there needs to be an answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
