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.
Have you read and checked the original post? The segment between South Station to Chelsea City Hall - Bellingham Sq would be underground if built while the rest of the line would be above or below grade, depending on the location.
Also, it wouldn't be too hard to place a two-track subway underneath Downtown Boston, and Atlantic Ave was selected since it would be easier to connect to the Red and Silver lines at South Station, another station at Rowes Wharf, and another station connecting to the Blue Line at Aquarium.
Umm, no. I am a transit buff myself with my own wish list but I have to admit it is next to impossible to dig a hole in the ground for a subway tunnel in Boston anymore.The North-South rail link has long been proposed and former MA Governor Mike Dukakis, himself a one time patron of SEPTA's regional rail which does connect north and south (he went to Swarthmore for college), is a strong proponent of it but it is financially next to impossible to implement the idea. The 4 to 5 star hotels and the multimillion dollar properties the route would run past would not stand for Atlantic Avenue to be dug up for a cut and cover that would interfere with their businesses and make their surroundings look ugly. This is not to mention the tremendous traffic detours that would need to take place around the Central Artery. Regional motorists have shot down the idea in flames in the past and they will continue to shoot down the idea in flames. You had might as well advocate for I-93 to be split asunder into two parts and the Central Artery to be converted from highway to underground railway. See where that proposal will get you.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but again, this is not even a remotely realistic proposal. That's fine - I'm a transit geek and have spent many hours dreaming up fantasy routes and networks. But it's helpful to understand what's realistic and what isn't. Your proposal is not.
I accept the opinions of many here and you guys have, at east, been much more civilized than the yahoos in the Philadelphia forum, and while my Fairmount (Aqua) Line isn't deemed realistic, by many, in the near future, especially once Boston hits it's all-time population high, and even hits the magic number of 1M residents within the city limits, I can see this line really helping with mobility. It's only a matter of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Who says "it wouldn't be too hard to place a two-track subway underneath downtown Boston?" If it's even possible to do in a way that the several downtown stations you propose would be useful (and I don't think it is), it would need to be impossibly deep which would be an engineering nightmare. A tunnel between South Station and North Station/Lovejoy would need to go beneath the existing O'Neil tunnel, beneath the existing Red Line tunnel, beneath the existing Silver Line tunnel, beneath the existing Blue Line tunnel, and beneath dozens of miles of utility lines.
But that's not all. If a new tunnel is built under this area of downtown Boston, it's going to be the North/South Rail Link. That is already a major logistical challenge and the potential depth of a "Central" station (around Aquarium) is one of the major hangups (it would be the deepest in the system by a good margin). Your proposal would have to go still deeper, beneath a new North/South Rail Link tunnel. Not only would it be incredibly challenging to build, but it would be a nightmare to maintain several new stations that are hundreds of feet underground.
Placing a subway would be beneficial by building it along and below Atlantic Ave and Cross St. The subway doesn't need to be below the Big Dig in order for it to be beneficial. The MBTA has also proposed extending the Blue Line to Charles/MGH via Cambridge St, so building a subway is still possible.
The North-South Rail Link would be a logistical nightmare, IMHO! In order to complete such a task, the city and state would have to tunnel deeper than the current Big Dig, and that cost might be more expensive to do that than the Big Dig itself. NYC is already having problems trying to connect both Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal. I also don't believe that Boston needs a "Central Station" for commuter and intercity rail due to the fact that downtown Boston just doesn't have any space for that, especially with the current high-rise developments going on right now!. it's best to use what you have for right now!
Penn Station, because it can travel north to Boston, south to Philadelphia and DC, and even north to Montreal, Buffalo, and Toronto has always been regarded as the main train station, while GCT exclusively travels north to Boston, Montreal, Buffalo, and Toronto depending on the services available. Philadelphia was able to connect 30th St Station and Suburban Station with the new Market East Station to replace the old Reading Terminal.
If a traveler from Montreal wanted to go to NYC, he'd have to take a train via Albany and Yonkers to do so and if that same traveler wanted to go to Boston, he'd have to go via VT and NH. Lastly, what would be the main benefit of having the North-South rail link? The only benefit I can see is that it would be able to connect Maine and the Maritime provinces of Canada to NYC via Boston and while it would be ideal, there's not enough people in those places to really warrant a N-S rail link. Air travel would be the best if people want to connect between the Maritime Provinces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Then there's cost. You're talking about at least 3+ miles of new, deep bore tunnel (twice going under the harbor) and probably 10+ miles of elevated rail. What do you think that would cost? The Big Dig cost over $14 billion 2 decades ago (some estimates put the total cost over $24 billion). The GLX cost $2.3 Billion for a much smaller, mostly at-grade project with zero tunneling. What your proposing would easily run in the ballpark of $50-100 billion.
The plan that I've formulated would come in phases, meaning that it wouldn't be built in one installment, but four phases. The first phase would just connect South Station Red and Silver line stations with the newly converted Fairmount (Aqua) line. The next phase would build a 1.2 mile tunnel between South Station and Lovejoy with stations on South Station, Rowes Wharf, Aquarium Station connecting to the Blue Line, Hanover St-North End connecting to the Haymarket Station for the Green and Orange lines, and Lovejoy.
The third phase would connect Charlestown and Chelsea, and the fourth and final plan would go into Revere, Everett, and Saugus. Once again, you've assumed that I would bore underneath the Big Dig when my plan was to build a subway (either cut and cover or tunnel bore) underneath Atlantic Ave, Cross St, and N Washington St for my second phase (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.3...8992!3e1?hl=en). Cut-and-cover would be much cheaper, and yes, building a subway tunnel, especially if it has to travel through Boston Harbor, would be much more expensive.
In a perfect world, every transit project would be built in one installment, but that's not the way the world works and you have to plan ahead. At the very least, I'd love to see the Fairmount Line become a subway line connecting to South Station if the other phases don't go ahead. At least Boston can have four heavy rail Ines running through it's city as well as a bus rapid transit and light rail system it can be proud of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
And the question is - "Why?" It's been established already that Fairmount line ridership is low and there are much, much more cost effective and far less disruptive ways to improve frequencies to rapid levels and encourage ridership (Electrified/EMU service at expanded South Station). There's nothing about that line that justifies such a massive investment. Charlestown is well served already as nearly the entire neighborhood is within a 20 minute walk of the Orange Line. Much of it is within walking distance to downtown, and several bus and ferry routes provide additional connections. Chelsea deserves better transit, but rather than boring a new tunnel beneath downtown, Charleston, and the harbor (twice), it'd be much more cost effective to branch a spur of the Blue Line out to Chelsea, or possibly the Orange Line (though I think there are reasons that might not be doable). You could also potentially convert the Silver Line in Chelsea to light rail and extend it. All of the above is fantasyland territory, but it would still be cheaper and easier than your proposal.
The real reason for the low ridership is that because the Fairmount Line is a commuter rail, it only has frequencies of 45 minutes every weekday and 90 minutes every weekends and holidays, so I don't see how running it as a commuter rail line is going to make it viable as a transit line when running it as a subway line would mean you'd have trains running every 5-10 min rush hour and every 15-30 min off peak, and many more people would use it as opposed to the 45 min frequencies that the current Fairmount Line offers to residents and passengers.
You ever heard of the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan? It was first proposed way back in 1920 as part of the IND system. However, because the Lexington Avenue Line on Manhattan's East Side was the most congested and crowded line from 59th St all the way to 125th St, that fact necessitated having the Second Ave Subway to be built.
Personally, I'm no fan of the Second Ave Subway because I believed First Ave should've gotten the honors of having it's own subway line due to First Ave being close to Stuyvesant Town, Peter Cooper Village, Bellevue Hospital, which is the main hospital in NYC comparable to MGH in Boston, Langone Health Center, the UN Headquarters, Yorkville, Gracie Mansion, and the closest line to the East River, as well as the fact that the Second Ave Subway doesn't offer express service despite the stations in the upper East Side being spaced farther away. The Second Ave subway should have express service between 59th St and 125th St, IMO!
But what's done is done, and the Second Ave Subway is doing it's job, which is to alleviate the crowding and congestion of the Lexington Ave Subway. The Aqua line in Boston would've done the same thing for the T in that it would help alleviate crowding and congestion for the Orange and Blue lines and many bus routes north of downtown as well as revitalize and reinvigorate surrounding communities with TODs and density nearby my proposed line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Finally, with all due respect to Western Revere and Saugus, their transit needs can be met through far more cost effective means than an ungodly expensive new subway line. Creating new and upgrading key existing bus lines (like the 110) to Bus Rapid Transit complete with separated bus lanes could provide more than adequate connections to rapid for people in Malden, Everett, and Revere. The North-South Rail Link will improve commuter rail frequencies across the state. Adding some key bus connections to commuter rail in Melrose and Lynn would be adequate for people living in Saugus and far more cost effective than a brand new subway line.
The segment from Chelsea to Saugus would be elevated, rather than underground, and the segment would be placed along Route 1. It's a little tougher to find a street where BRT should be placed (maybe Squire Rd or Revere Beach Pkwy), but I'd leave most of the bus routes as local service. Most of the congestion and crowding in the buses would be alleviated if the Aqua line were to be built north of Boston, meaning that the local bus routes north of Boston would serve as strictly feeder routes into the rail lines (Orange, Blue, and my proposed Aqua), while the subway lines would be higher capacity lines for more commuters to and from Boston, which is practically the main purpose.
I don't know to many people from the North Suburbs of Boston who would commute to the South suburbs of Boston and back, as many people usually commute either to Boston or to Cambridge and Somerville and back, and other than connecting North and South Station, I don't really see the long term benefit of connecting North and South Station other than a direct, one-seat trip from NYC to Maine and the Maritime provinces.
Speaking of Lynn, it's best to extend the Blue Line from Wonderland to Lynn, with four new stations, which should be the T's next priority. That's always been the plan of the T when it was known as the MTA back in the 1920's. It's now time for the MBTA to finish that proposal pronto! BRT looks like it can work in Boston and many denser areas like Cambridge (the Harvard bus tunnel comes to mind). There's already BRT along Columbus Ave, and my hopes for BRT would be from Washington St in Roslindale and West Roxbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7059...55618,7z?hl=en), Hyde Park Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7059...55618,7z?hl=en), Blue Hill Ave and Warren St in Roxbury and Dorchester (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7059...55618,7z?hl=en), Dorchester Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7059...55618,7z?hl=en), and Morton St from Forest Mills to Mattapan. At first, I didn't believe that BRt would really work in Boston due to the cowpath system of streets, but after seeing how some routes are being allocated, I've had a second opinion and I believe that Boston should build more dedicated BRT lanes as possible.
Umm, no. I am a transit buff myself with my own wish list but I have to admit it is next to impossible to dig a hole in the ground for a subway tunnel in Boston anymore.The North-South rail link has long been proposed and former MA Governor Mike Dukakis, himself a one time patron of SEPTA's regional rail which does connect north and south (he went to Swarthmore for college), is a strong proponent of it but it is financially next to impossible to implement the idea.
North Station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Station#History) was the predecessor to the Boston & Maine Railroad while South Station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Station#History) is the product of combined railroads such as the Boston & Albany, the Boston & Providence, the New York & New England, and the Old Colony Railroad. Many of the associated railroads would consolidate into the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad (NH) and the New York Central (NYC) Railroad.
What made the Center City Commuter Connection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center...ter_Connection) successful was that the commuter rail segment of 30th St Station already crossed the Schuylkill and descended into what's once a Pennsylvania Railroad terminal called Suburban Station. Reading Terminal was nearby and the distance between the two stations was about 0.4 miles. To connect the PRR line to the Reading line, it took 1.8 miles of rail to connect the two systems within 6 years at a cost of $330 million in 1984 (estimated at $1.4 billion in 2021)Former mayor Frank Rizzo was able to secure the federal funds to connect the two stations and the CCCC was completed in 1984. Today the CCCC lasts as a positive legacy to Rizzo's complicated and controversial mayoral tenure.
Compare that to the distance between North and South Stations, and you're talking about a distance of 1.3 miles plus the fact that the N-S rail link would be underground and you're looking at a hefty price of possibly ten times of what it took to build the CCCC due to the infrastructure, the power and utility lines as well as the water and sewage lines, not to mention a lot of buildings that would be affected by the N-S rail link. In a perfect world, the N-S railroad link would've been built already, but with limited resources, we've got to use what we have right now. Also, I don't believe that the N-S rail link is that much of a priority for the MBTA right now.
If there are commuters who live in North of Boston who commute to South of Boston and vice versa, that's actually news to me, especially since people usually live where they either work or have easy access to jobs meaning a more direct path to and from work and home and back. And even if there was a good number of people who traveled through Boston to another suburban destination is not going to be enough people to generate a N-S rail link from being built, especially since Downtown Boston, Back Bay, the Seaport District and Cambridge are the main economic engines of Greater Boston and New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant
The 4 to 5 star hotels and the multimillion dollar properties the route would run past would not stand for Atlantic Avenue to be dug up for a cut and cover that would interfere with their businesses and make their surroundings look ugly. This is not to mention the tremendous traffic detours that would need to take place around the Central Artery. Regional motorists have shot down the idea in flames in the past and they will continue to shoot down the idea in flames. You had might as well advocate for I-93 to be split asunder into two parts and the Central Artery to be converted from highway to underground railway. See where that proposal will get you.
It seems like everybody on here are "transit buffs" but the bolded quote sounds like somebody who's anti-transit. I'm always looking for solutions, and if the city and state can afford a tunnel boring machine to create this proposed subway, then I'm all for it. If it's cheaper to use cut-and-cover methods just to get the line going despite Atlantic Ave being either closed or reduced to one lane, then that's what the state wants, but isn't being pro-transit supposed to signify finding alternatives to using motor vehicles?
In your case, an expensive tunnel boring machine would be the solution underneath Atlantic Ave since it won't disrupt the traffic. We can all hope that the federal gov't is much more generous with transportation funds because for the past 60-70 years, the DOT has always favored highways and expressways over railroads while Europe, Asia and now the Middle East are building subways like it's next to nothing. The state and city plays a part but half of every major mass transit funding comes from the feds! A bunch of suburban NIMBYs shouldn't artificially stunt Boston's mass transit system because they'd rather sit in their cars on the way to the North and South suburbs.
In your case, an expensive tunnel boring machine would be the solution underneath Atlantic Ave since it won't disrupt the traffic. We can all hope that the federal gov't is much more generous with transportation funds because for the past 60-70 years, the DOT has always favored highways and expressways over railroads while Europe, Asia and now the Middle East are building subways like it's next to nothing. The state and city plays a part but half of every major mass transit funding comes from the feds! A bunch of suburban NIMBYs shouldn't artificially stunt Boston's mass transit system because they'd rather sit in their cars on the way to the North and South suburbs.
What you say is the difference between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China. President Xi Jin Ping has the authority and power to order as many subways and railroads built regardless of ridership. Mayors and provincial governors all do the Central Government's bidding because there is one Party, one Country, one Economy, one Everything in China, no Republican vs. Democrat in-fighting. The government can and will take your property through what is equivalent to eminent domain if they need the space to construct and there is little recourse you as the ordinary citizen can take other than hope to receive fair compensation. Countries like China did not have good transit in the past and building transit is innovative and exciting to them right now not to mention it provides good jobs. They have the industry to build trains, they have the manpower, the resources, and the WILL to construct and maintain systems. What do we have over here right now? How long did it take to build the Green Line extension? Are the new Type 9's running on the Green Line all American? The US at one time had the same vision. Have you ever heard of streetcar suburbs? Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Malden, Melrose, Somerville, and so forth were all streetcar suburbs as were Hyde Park, Roslindale, Dorchester, and Mattapan which have since merged Boston. These were early suburban communities that flourished on account of people riding streetcars and they were the "it" thing that even affluent residents had interest in (streetcar suburbs ranged from low to high income depending on location). Transit at one time in our history was so popular that politicians and celebrities jumped on its wagon. When does that happen now?
And seriously, you're starting to sound arrogant in your posts by accusing others of being "anti-transit" when all they're trying to tell you is that your ideas are well meant but not practical. I've personally ridden the T all my life and through its ups and downs, I've never come to the point in which I declare I will never ride it again, OK. My Urban Planning graduate school professor told us all at one time that we have to be practical visionaries, and simply telling others that "my way is the only way therefore you must accept it" is not the right way to go about.
What you say is the difference between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China. President Xi Jin Ping has the authority and power to order as many subways and railroads built regardless of ridership. Mayors and provincial governors all do the Central Government's bidding because there is one Party, one Country, one Economy, one Everything in China, no Republican vs. Democrat in-fighting. The government can and will take your property through what is equivalent to eminent domain if they need the space to construct and there is little recourse you as the ordinary citizen can take other than hope to receive fair compensation.
I've seen what China is doing and I'm no booster for China, communism, or socialism, but what I was trying to say is that when it comes to subways and mass transit, Europe and Asia has America beat, regardless of political belief!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant
Countries like China did not have good transit in the past and building transit is innovative and exciting to them right now not to mention it provides good jobs. They have the industry to build trains, they have the manpower, the resources, and the WILL to construct and maintain systems. What do we have over here right now? How long did it take to build the Green Line extension? Are the new Type 9's running on the Green Line all American? The US at one time had the same vision. Have you ever heard of streetcar suburbs? Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Malden, Melrose, Somerville, and so forth were all streetcar suburbs as were Hyde Park, Roslindale, Dorchester, and Mattapan which have since merged Boston. These were early suburban communities that flourished on account of people riding streetcars and they were the "it" thing that even affluent residents had interest in (streetcar suburbs ranged from low to high income depending on location). Transit at one time in our history was so popular that politicians and celebrities jumped on its wagon. When does that happen now?
Once more, the TSA has been heavily subsidizing highways and expressways ever since Eisenhower has been president and even today, a majority of the country still operates like that even though the TSA is finally starting to come to it's senses and understand that you just can't leave mass transit systems idle and build expressways in every area of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant
And seriously, you're starting to sound arrogant in your posts by accusing others of being "anti-transit" when all they're trying to tell you is that your ideas are well meant but not practical. I've personally ridden the T all my life and through its ups and downs, I've never come to the point in which I declare I will never ride it again, OK. My Urban Planning graduate school professor told us all at one time that we have to be practical visionaries, and simply telling others that "my way is the only way therefore you must accept it" is not the right way to go about.
My point wasn't trying in any way to be arrogant, or my way or the highway. Even then, when I put my plan in place, it was meant to be built in phases, not to slap the entire line from Readville to Saugus in one full installment! If anything, a line from Readville to South Station would've been a great addition.
My response was that the proposal of motorists wouldn't allow a new subway line because, according to your quote, the MA taxpayers would rather sit in traffic for an hour in the Central Artery than allow for either another subway line or another commuter line to get built in Boston.
My past posts have indicated that I'm for a subway line over a north-south commuter link because much more people would utilize a subway line for whatever reason over a north-south commuter link because since Downtown Boston, Back Bay, Cambridge, and Somerville are considered the main CBDs in Greater Boston, and not Natick, Lowell, Wellesley, Foxboro, etc., it makes a lot of sense to invest in something where a lot more people would utilize the service rather than a few people from the North Suburbs who wish to commuter to the South Suburbs and vice versa.
I only started this thread just to see how many people onboard would be open to having another subway line and it looks like half do and half don't. If the MBTA rather keep it as a commuter line, let it be, as I don't work for the MBTA. I believe that the MBTA needs to be fixed from the top down in order to be an effective transit agency, but the fact is that Boston isn't the only transit agency in the country struggling to maintain the infrastructure. Since this is a Boston forum, I can understand that people on here want the best for the MBTA.
I'm also willing to share some ideas on here because I'd at least like to see another city get it's act together, and while many on here don't believe that the MBTA is one of the best mass transit systems here, I can at least appreciate the coverage that the MBTA has in different towns and areas of the city and state unlike what SEPTA has for SE PA. All I'm saying is be blessed and actually strive for the best!
Lots of good points in this thread, though I haven't looked through all of it.
I do want to bring two points to everyone's attention.
One is an example which is the REM systems currently underway in Montreal which for a very low price is bringing about rapid transit to a lot of Montreal with both new construction and re-use of existing commuter rail lines. The important parts of this is that they're using existing standard gauge rail infrastructure and using them for higher frequencies. They're light rail in the sense that they are lighter rolling stock, but they act as rapid transit with grade separation and are heavily automated. All combined, it's going to be rapid transit to lots of the city made relatively cheaply in expansion and with the intention of being relatively cheap to operate and expand.
The other is that while the NSRL can perhaps be the most transformative project in greatly expanding rapid transit throughout the metropolitan area as well as the national railway system (Amtrak), there is a lopsidedness with far more lines feeding into South Station than to North Station and this imbalance is worth taking a look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I had always thought this was a great idea and something the T should pursue, but I asked in another more transit nerdy forum (can't post a link, CD rules) about the possibility of this and got shot down quickly. In short, it's not possible. The jist of why it's not possible is as follows:
The tracks the Fairmount line are also used for Franklin/Foxoboro trains which can't be moved onto the Northeast Corridor tracks which are already congested. There's no room for additional new tracks (like what was done along the Lowell Line corridor to accommodate the Green Line Extension). So converting to rapid transit would be a detriment to the Franklin line and put added pressure on the Northeast corridor. Both nonstarters.
The tracks are also currently the only freight rail connection to Boston from the south. Eliminating that connection is a nonstarter as it's currently essential and it's a vital component of the continued growth of shipping to the Seaport (the actual freight seaport, not the neighborhood).
Finally, the MBTA is building a new maintenance facility at Readville, making the Fairmount line tracks essential for moving and storing all commuter rail trains on the South Station commuter rail network.
There are also some borderline insurmountable logistical hurdles when it comes to connecting a rapid transit Fairmount Line into the existing rapid transit network (i.e. the Amtrak maintenance yard is in the way, and a North/South Rail Link tunnel will get in the way). So even if all of the above wasn't an obstacle and you could do it, you'd still have an extremely hard time connecting it to the existing network.
The best bet for Fairmount is capacity increases at South Station, EMU rolling stock, and seamless fare collection (i.e. AFC 2.0 which is underway) priced the same as existing rapid transit which would allow flexible, nearly-rapid transit headways (10-15 minutes apart) and relatively easy transfers to the Red and Silver Lines at South Station.
This makes sense as an issue given track capacity on the northeast rail line, but I think with the points mentioned above, perhaps there's a way to kill two birds with one stone. That is to say, to convert the Franklin/Foxboro line into utilizing a REM-like system alongside the Fairmount line and permanently having higher frequencies going through the Fairmount line where these trains solely use the Fairmount line. This takes the Franklin/Foxboro line and Fairmount line services out of the North South Rail Link which is capacity that all the other South Station-bound lines can use instead. You don't have to eliminate the connection, but rather preserve it for moving rolling stock to these places when heavy maintenance is required. Taking these lines out of the NSRL and the current South Station berths seem to me like a good way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
Only used the yellow font just to designate the surface routes. My fault if you can't read it, but you can highlight the script.
The frequencies would at least be 10-15 min off peak and 5 min rush hour for the Fairmount Line. It's not necessary to extend a branch from the Fairmount Line to Mattapan Sq. The distance from the proposed Blue Hill Ave station on the new Fairmount Line to Mattapan Sq is 1/2 a mile, therefore it's just not necessary.
Last time I checked, each line is strictly independent of one another! And creating a brand new line for Boston (which should be built in phases, BTW) is going to help improve mobility in Boston. The aging of the system plus the inefficiencies of the T is an inside problem and the culture and the management does need to change. But I don't see how adding a new line is going to complicate the problems of the T, especially since the aforementioned lines are the oldest lines in the system compared to this line.
It's a touchy topic it according to the MBTA commuter line map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_Rail_Map.svg), it looks like the Franklin line can be connected via Back Bay to South Station and the Fairmount Line is supposed to end at Readville, even though the Fairmount can be connected to the Franklin line and travel further south.
I believe a lot of the trains can be timed perfectly just to give Acela trains priority over the regular Northeast Corridor trains, and it might seem like the Northeast Corridor will be more congested but the point is that the NE Corridor is the most congested rail corridor in America so I'm not sure how removing the Fairmount Line for subway service is going to make the NE Corridor even more congested, especially since the Fairmount Line isn't used that much since its about thirty minutes each way to and from South Station.
I've checked out the map, and from a distance it makes sense, but it looks like there's really no direct connection according to the track map from the Fairmount line to the Boston Seaport. Also, the Seaport, as a whole has been de-emphasized form an industrial area to another extension of downtown Boston. Not barring the fact that there's not port operations in Boston, but the old seaport isn't the same and Boston isn't the same industrial city that I once was in the 20th century.
I'm pretty sure there's other ports around Boston (Charlestown, Chelsea, etc.) and in New England (Providence, New Bedford, etc.) that can pick up the slack from the Boston Seaport, and it doesn't look like the Boston Seaport is really the main seaport that it once was in the past. It also seems like Boston is following NYC and SF and de-emphasizing their ports and allowing other areas (Newark, NJ, Oakland, CA to take over the port operations) and Boston is no different in this regard.
It remains to be seen how the commuter rail system improves. I'm still convinced that a separate transit line can be completed on the Fairmount Line and wherever the MBTA stores their commuter trains is going to have to be allocated depending on the commuter line's location.
A half mile transfer is still quite an inconvenience, but further thinking about it makes me wonder if connecting the Mattapan Trolley directly into that line might be a better idea and have that not as a transfer, but as a leg of a REM system though I'd put this low on the priority list. I think linking them though would mean having to expand platforms on the Mattapan trolley as well as making that connection. Otherwise, I think possibly just extending the trolley on Cummins Highway to the Rosindale Village Needham line stop would also work.
This is a response to a separate post of yours, but the North South Rail link does have a clean dirt box of sorts from the Big Dig as it was originally planned to be part of the mitigation measure. As I understand it, utility relocation is already done underneath there, so this can be done. Furthermore, because of the various approaches from the various commuter rail lines, you do actually want it pretty deep so that all the lines have a relatively clear path to feeding into the North South Rail link.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-27-2022 at 10:36 AM..
What you say is the difference between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China. President Xi Jin Ping has the authority and power to order as many subways and railroads built regardless of ridership. Mayors and provincial governors all do the Central Government's bidding because there is one Party, one Country, one Economy, one Everything in China, no Republican vs. Democrat in-fighting. The government can and will take your property through what is equivalent to eminent domain if they need the space to construct and there is little recourse you as the ordinary citizen can take other than hope to receive fair compensation. Countries like China did not have good transit in the past and building transit is innovative and exciting to them right now not to mention it provides good jobs. They have the industry to build trains, they have the manpower, the resources, and the WILL to construct and maintain systems. What do we have over here right now? How long did it take to build the Green Line extension? Are the new Type 9's running on the Green Line all American? The US at one time had the same vision. Have you ever heard of streetcar suburbs? Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Malden, Melrose, Somerville, and so forth were all streetcar suburbs as were Hyde Park, Roslindale, Dorchester, and Mattapan which have since merged Boston. These were early suburban communities that flourished on account of people riding streetcars and they were the "it" thing that even affluent residents had interest in (streetcar suburbs ranged from low to high income depending on location). Transit at one time in our history was so popular that politicians and celebrities jumped on its wagon. When does that happen now?
And seriously, you're starting to sound arrogant in your posts by accusing others of being "anti-transit" when all they're trying to tell you is that your ideas are well meant but not practical. I've personally ridden the T all my life and through its ups and downs, I've never come to the point in which I declare I will never ride it again, OK. My Urban Planning graduate school professor told us all at one time that we have to be practical visionaries, and simply telling others that "my way is the only way therefore you must accept it" is not the right way to go about.
While I disagree with some points wander34 has made and think him saying people are anti-transit for disagreeing is faulty, I also think going straight to the differences from China and its system is also a long reach. The fact of the matter is, a lot of democratic countries with strong property rights and strong unions have done a lot more with transit than the US has, and so setting up China as the foil doesn't make much sense to me. Among democratic developed countries, US cities do have pound for pound less functional transit than those of these other countries even our quite similar neighbor to the north as well as fairly newly developed and not so densely settled countries in the Anglosphere such as Australia.
Lots of good points in this thread, though I haven't looked through all of it.
I do want to bring two points to everyone's attention.
One is an example which is the REM systems currently underway in Montreal which for a very low price is bringing about rapid transit to a lot of Montreal with both new construction and re-use of existing commuter rail lines. The important parts of this is that they're using existing standard gauge rail infrastructure and using them for higher frequencies. They're light rail in the sense that they are lighter rolling stock, but they act as rapid transit with grade separation and are heavily automated. All combined, it's going to be rapid transit to lots of the city made relatively cheaply in expansion and with the intention of being relatively cheap to operate and expand.
While Montreal is out of topic here in the Boston forum, I'd like to discuss the REM L'est in Montreal's East End: I support half of the project and by that I mean the underground alignment of the REM L'est via Boulevard Pie IX. The other alignment should've used the current existing ROW which went all the way to Pointe-aux-Trembles rather than trying to force an elevated structure from Honore-Beaureguard to Pointe-aux-Trembles via Sherbrooke St. That way, it could've saved the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal a lot more money using the current ROW over the elevated structure. And the Park Ave segment should really be a Metro subway, IMHO!
Finally, I would've preferred to expand the Montreal Metro by adding another Metro line via Park Ave to Laval and Dix30 in Brossard, extended the Yellow Line from Berri-UQAM to Park northbound and Longueuil-St Hubert Airport eastbound, extended the Blue Line from Snowdon to Dorval via Cote-St-Luc Rd, extend the Green Line northbound from Honore-Beaureguard to Montreal-Ouest, where it can be a transfer point for the REM L'est and southbound from Angrignon to Lasalle EXO station, and maybe even consider a Pink Line from Lachine to Montreal Nord. There needs to be another thread started about the Montreal Metro on the Transit forum. The REM is a nice system which as used former commuter rail lines into a light metro, but I believe it should be a supplementary system for Montreal and not the main system as the Metro is and I can also hope that the Canadian and Quebec governments really set up a plan to expand Montreal's Metro system, which is one of a kind in that it doesn't go above grade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The other is that while the NSRL can perhaps be the most transformative project in greatly expanding rapid transit throughout the metropolitan area as well as the national railway system (Amtrak), there is a lopsidedness with far more lines feeding into South Station than to North Station and this imbalance is worth taking a look at.
This makes sense as an issue given track capacity on the northeast rail line, but I think with the points mentioned above, perhaps there's a way to kill two birds with one stone. That is to say, to convert the Franklin/Foxboro line into utilizing a REM-like system alongside the Fairmount line and permanently having higher frequencies going through the Fairmount line where these trains solely use the Fairmount line. This takes the Franklin/Foxboro line and Fairmount line services out of the North South Rail Link which is capacity that all the other South Station-bound lines can use instead. You don't have to eliminate the connection, but rather preserve it for moving rolling stock to these places when heavy maintenance is required. Taking these lines out of the NSRL and the current South Station berths seem to me like a good way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
This is a response to a separate post of yours, but the North South Rail link does have a clean dirt box of sorts from the Big Dig as it was originally planned to be part of the mitigation measure. As I understand it, utility relocation is already done underneath there, so this can be done. Furthermore, because of the various approaches from the various commuter rail lines, you do actually want it pretty deep so that all the lines have a relatively clear path to feeding into the North South Rail link.
The reason why I opposed the NSRL was simply related to cost, low possibility of suburbanites from the North Suburbs traveling into the South Suburbs for work and back, plus the distance between North & South Stations in Boston. If there's space for a four-track commuter rail tunnel underneath the Big Dig, and all that's needed is to hollow out a tunnel for that purpose, cool, but the cost is the biggest issue. If anything, the NSRL should've been built at the same time as the expressway was built, why wasn't the NSRL considered during this time?
Since Boston is one of the densest cities in the US, it's best to add a few more subway and light rail lines within Boston and expand what you have. I believe that's more of a priority before a NSRL is even considered, especially since the trend right now is to live within or close by major American cities. While Boston has one of the most utilized mass transit systems in the country, there are still suburbanites who still prefer to use their cars and sit in traffic and wait for almost an hour just not to share space with another person. That's just the reality of living in America, even as American cities are playing catchup and building new systems for their growing populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
A half mile transfer is still quite an inconvenience, but further thinking about it makes me wonder if connecting the Mattapan Trolley directly into that line might be a better idea and have that not as a transfer, but as a leg of a REM system though I'd put this low on the priority list. I think linking them though would mean having to expand platforms on the Mattapan trolley as well as making that connection. Otherwise, I think possibly just extending the trolley on Cummins Highway to the Rosindale Village Needham line stop would also work.
It's a little superfluous to expand the Ashmont-Mattapan line from Mattapan to Roslindale and all the way into Needham. To do that, you'd have to build a tunnel since there's no ROW anywhere in that part of town to connect from Mattapan to Roslindale. Also, you'd have to replace the one car set with a regular Green Line style light rail set, since you're talking about bringing in more people for that line.
The Fairmount Line conversion from a commuter to a subway line will always be a part of the MBTA conversation until that actually happens and the same can be said for the Blue Line extension to Lynn, the Green Line extensions to Watertown and Arborway, and a possible Red Line extension to Arlington. The T subway is still a work in progress as of 2022 and beyond!!!
Last edited by wanderer34; 12-27-2022 at 11:57 PM..
While Montreal is out of topic here in the Boston forum, I'd like to discuss the REM L'est in Montreal's East End: I support half of the project and by that I mean the underground alignment of the REM L'est via Boulevard Pie IX. The other alignment should've used the current existing ROW which went all the way to Pointe-aux-Trembles rather than trying to force an elevated structure from Honore-Beaureguard to Pointe-aux-Trembles via Sherbrooke St. That way, it could've saved the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal a lot more money using the current ROW over the elevated structure. And the Park Ave segment should really be a Metro subway, IMHO!
Finally, I would've preferred to expand the Montreal Metro by adding another Metro line via Park Ave to Laval and Dix30 in Brossard, extended the Yellow Line from Berri-UQAM to Park northbound and Longueuil-St Hubert Airport eastbound, extended the Blue Line from Snowdon to Dorval via Cote-St-Luc Rd, extend the Green Line northbound from Honore-Beaureguard to Montreal-Ouest, where it can be a transfer point for the REM L'est and southbound from Angrignon to Lasalle EXO station, and maybe even consider a Pink Line from Lachine to Montreal Nord. There needs to be another thread started about the Montreal Metro on the Transit forum. The REM is a nice system which as used former commuter rail lines into a light metro, but I believe it should be a supplementary system for Montreal and not the main system as the Metro is and I can also hope that the Canadian and Quebec governments really set up a plan to expand Montreal's Metro system, which is one of a kind in that it doesn't go above grade.
The reason why I opposed the NSRL was simply related to cost, low possibility of suburbanites from the North Suburbs traveling into the South Suburbs for work and back, plus the distance between North & South Stations in Boston. If there's space for a four-track commuter rail tunnel underneath the Big Dig, and all that's needed is to hollow out a tunnel for that purpose, cool, but the cost is the biggest issue. If anything, the NSRL should've been built at the same time as the expressway was built, why wasn't the NSRL considered during this time?
Since Boston is one of the densest cities in the US, it's best to add a few more subway and light rail lines within Boston and expand what you have. I believe that's more of a priority before a NSRL is even considered, especially since the trend right now is to live within or close by major American cities. While Boston has one of the most utilized mass transit systems in the country, there are still suburbanites who still prefer to use their cars and sit in traffic and wait for almost an hour just not to share space with another person. That's just the reality of living in America, even as American cities are playing catchup and building new systems for their growing populations.
It's a little superfluous to expand the Ashmont-Mattapan line from Mattapan to Roslindale and all the way into Needham. To do that, you'd have to build a tunnel since there's no ROW anywhere in that part of town to connect from Mattapan to Roslindale. Also, you'd have to replace the one car set with a regular Green Line style light rail set, since you're talking about bringing in more people for that line.
The Fairmount Line conversion from a commuter to a subway line will always be a part of the MBTA conversation until that actually happens and the same can be said for the Blue Line extension to Lynn, the Green Line extensions to Watertown and Arborway, and a possible Red Line extension to Arlington. The T subway is still a work in progress as of 2022 and beyond!!!
Agreed that further discussing details on the REM is off-topic--I just wanted to point it out a rapid transit system that has notable differences from the subway, light rail, and commuter rail systems that Boston has and can conceivably be deployed in the Boston area. I think this makes sense for the Fairmount and Franklin lines because they have dedicated ROW and currently South Station has capacity issues (and there would be lopsided operations were NSRL to be built) so new tunneling for their endpoints once close to downtown and potentially past downtown could make sense.
I do think the US in general needs to get its infrastructure costs down as it's a pretty notable anomaly compared to other developed countries. However, NSRL is something that is worth putting down a hefty chunk of change for multiple reasons. It's not just North Station bound suburb to South Station bound suburb commutes and travel that it's good for, but rather that it
- dramatically lifts total capacity and frequency MBTA Commuter Rail lines can run even if a person doesn't end up crossing through the tunnel on their trip because it is operationally far more efficient and can take in more trains per hour which in effect creates multiple new rapid transit services for all interlined service sections and fairly good though not rapid transit service for everywhere else that's not interlined
- allows for a direct connection to the Blue Line and redistributes North Station and South Station bound commuters respectively to potentially be in easy walking distance of their destination or easy transfer to existing subway/light rail lines thereby minimizing commute times and effectively opening up total system capacity for those lines as well
- lowers the operating costs of running trains
- opens up the South Station terminal berths and interlocking for redevelopment in downtown
- allows through-running of intercity Amtrak services to go through Boston
- and yea, it does allow for South Station to North Station bound commutes and would allow for better use of satellite downtowns to be developed
I believe it was suggested as a mitigation measure as part of the Big Dig, but did not happen. However, there is supposedly a clean dirt "box" without the need for utility relocations for if the NSRL were to be done so that's at least a bit easier. NSRL *is* using what Boston has more effectively and it is likely the single lowest hanging fruit per utility value possible with reuse of much current existing infrastructure.
I think an Ashmont-Mattapan line expansion should be relatively low priority, but I will point out that there is a pretty easy pathway to a dedicated ROW as Cummins Highway is not your usual narrow street, but generally four to six lanes (one to two travel each way, oftentimes with parking each way) *and* a median which can be converted or have cut and cover done.
Agreed that further discussing details on the REM is off-topic--I just wanted to point it out a rapid transit system that has notable differences from the subway, light rail, and commuter rail systems that Boston has and can conceivably be deployed in the Boston area. I think this makes sense for the Fairmount and Franklin lines because they have dedicated ROW and currently South Station has capacity issues (and there would be lopsided operations were NSRL to be built) so new tunneling for their endpoints once close to downtown and potentially past downtown could make sense.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I do think the US in general needs to get its infrastructure costs down as it's a pretty notable anomaly compared to other developed countries. However, NSRL is something that is worth putting down a hefty chunk of change for multiple reasons. It's not just North Station bound suburb to South Station bound suburb commutes and travel that it's good for, but rather that it
- dramatically lifts total capacity and frequency MBTA Commuter Rail lines can run even if a person doesn't end up crossing through the tunnel on their trip because it is operationally far more efficient and can take in more trains per hour which in effect creates multiple new rapid transit services for all interlined service sections and fairly good though not rapid transit service for everywhere else that's not interlined
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,
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
- allows for a direct connection to the Blue Line and redistributes North Station and South Station bound commuters respectively to potentially be in easy walking distance of their destination or easy transfer to existing subway/light rail lines thereby minimizing commute times and effectively opening up total system capacity for those lines as well
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
- lowers the operating costs of running trains
- opens up the South Station terminal berths and interlocking for redevelopment in downtown
- allows through-running of intercity Amtrak services to go through Boston
- and yea, it does allow for South Station to North Station bound commutes and would allow for better use of satellite downtowns to be developed
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I believe it was suggested as a mitigation measure as part of the Big Dig, but did not happen. However, there is supposedly a clean dirt "box" without the need for utility relocations for if the NSRL were to be done so that's at least a bit easier. NSRL *is* using what Boston has more effectively and it is likely the single lowest hanging fruit per utility value possible with reuse of much current existing infrastructure.
I think an Ashmont-Mattapan line expansion should be relatively low priority, but I will point out that there is a pretty easy pathway to a dedicated ROW as Cummins Highway is not your usual narrow street, but generally four to six lanes (one to two travel each way, oftentimes with parking each way) *and* a median which can be converted or have cut and cover done.
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.
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.
