US REP. SETH MOULTON on Tuesday called the expansion of South Station “a massive waste of $2 billion” and criticized the Baker administration for suggesting that it might be possible to both expand South Station and build an underground rail link between North and South Stations.
“Unfortunately, it shows me that a lot of people just don’t understand the North-South Rail Link,” Moulton said in a phone interview. “The South Station expansion is a massive waste of $2 billion and it’ll be obsolete in 10 years. It also cripples new development opportunities for decades to come and it does nothing to improve our standing as the 45th state in the nation when it comes to transportation.”
Moulton was responding to comments made on Monday by state Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack. Pollack is pushing ahead with the expansion of South Station to accommodate more trains even as the state is spending $2 million on a study of the North-South Rail Link, which is estimated to cost $3 billion to $5 billion. Asked when the state would have to choose between the two projects, Pollack indicated they weren’t mutually exclusive.
“I’m not sure that we agree with the North-South Rail Link Working Group that it is an either-or,” she said. “There are costs and benefits to the South Station expansion and there are costs and benefits to doing the North-South Rail Link. We agreed that we would look at them both in the same time frame, which is why we’re getting the feasibility study [for North-South rail] off the ground. It’s not impossible that we would decide to expand South Station and then decide later on to do the rail link. We are just proceeding with both of them at this point.”
The transportation secretary said a study of the South Station expansion identified the need for seven additional tracks there. She said a similar study for the North-South Rail Link hasn’t been completed yet, so it’s difficult to know whether the link would eliminate the need for more track capacity at South Station.
“I think it is an open question whether it would actually make sense that every single train would go through the North-South Rail Link or whether they would stop at South Station,” she said.
Moulton said it would make no sense to do both projects. He believes the North-South Rail Link would make the South Station expansion unnecessary. The South Station expansion is being pushed to add seven additional tracks to expand service to the south and west of the city. But Moulton said the rail link between North and South Stations would make the extra tracks at South Station unnecessary. Trains would still stop there, but once the entire commuter rail system is linked together, trains could park overnight just about anywhere, preferably where land is cheaper and more readily available, Moulton said.
Instead of using valuable land around South Station to park trains, Moulton said the property could be developed for better uses. Backers of the North-South Rail Link say South Station expansion would stymie $10 billion in economic development.
Moulton hailed Pollack as “brilliant” on transportation issues. “I see Secretary Pollack as a partner in getting to the right answer on this, but we clearly need more folks to present on this to the administration,” he said. “Not a single expert we’ve consulted on this thinks South Station expansion is a good idea.”
I like Seth, but he’s wrong on this. For similar costs, you could
(1) run a Fairmount DMU every 5-10 minutes
(2) extend the Blue Line to Lynn
(3) extend the GLX’s Union Sq. Branch to Barry’s Corner via Harvard Sq. (or just a Red Line Branch to Barry’s Corner
(4) convert the SL4/SL5 to true BRT
(5) have a BRT route from North Station to the Seaport District via Post Office Sq. and South Station, and
(6) have a BRT route from LMA to Mattapan Sq. via Seaver St. and Blue Hill Ave.
Waltham, Hyde Park, Lynn, Salem, Marblehead, etc. will all be much better off than with NSRL as their service will be more frequent and much cheaper ($85/mo. monthly subway/bus pass vs. $200+/mo. for Zones 1, 2, and 3 commuter rail). Further, communities such Lower Allston, Watertown, Belmont, Arlington, Dorchester, Mattapan, Roxbury would also be much better off under this plan, but wouldn’t get any benefit under NSRL.
All those items you list have nothing to do with the expansion of South Station. So how exactly is Seth wrong?
A North/South Tunnel presumes a clear track out of North Station for every train coming through the tunnel — whenever it does — and that’s not possible. Furthermore, it’s presumed that each train will be able to both arrive at and then depart from the first station at a specific time, and that’s not going to happen. Each station was built as a terminus, all of the signals, switches & tracks are arranged to funnel trains to end at the station.
One needs to remember that while South Station (BOS) was built as a union of several different railroads, North Station (BON) was built to only serve the Boston & Maine Railroad. While four different rail lines meet in BON, they all were routed through the B&M’s switching yard, a chokepoint exacerbated by tracks being lost to the building of I-93 and the Orange Line.
The situation on the Haverhill line is worse — there is only a single track between the Assembly Station and the end of the Orange Line as the other one was used for the Orange Line. That may have made sense in the early 1970’s when the Commuter Rail only went to Reading and was loosing customers to the newly-built I-93, but not now. A northbound train must make it to Melrose (after stopping in Malden) before the southbound train can leave Melrose as they can’t both be going in opposite directions on the same track at the same time.
It’s not just the number of tracks at the station but the number of tracks leading to it that creates a bottleneck, and I fail to understand how people believe that a train can emerge from a tunnel and immediately leave North Station — it can’t and there is no way that either station can operate on the other’s timetable. Furthermore, trains sit in the station so that they are able to leave on time — between this and the time needed for large numbers of people to get on or off, the trains will be sitting in the station for as long as they do now.
I can see trains backing up in the tunnel (how many tracks will it have?) and possibly backing up outside both stations waiting for the train ahead to clear the station. As this will involve crossing the track the inbound train is using (if not actually using it in the opposite direction) the inbound trains will have to stop & wait to facilitate this. Even if all the trains are on time, it will create a mess. Throw in wet snow bringing down wires across the tracks somewhere and it will make a mess absolutely everywhere….
Connecting tracks would be nice, but this belief that a train can immediately continue on to depart in the opposite direction is asinine. Even Amtrak’s Acela has to stop & wait 15 minutes at NY’s Penn Station…
Assuming the Acela is on time, which it often isn’t.
It has everything to do with the SSX vs. NSRL. We have only a limited amount of resources. The goal, after all, is to make communities better off. My point was that the transit-dependent communities most helped by NSRL (Lynn, Salem, Hyde Park, etc.) would be even better off with the proposals I made — namely Fairmount DMU and Blue Line to Lynn — and at significantly less costs. That’s the opportunity cost of NSRL.
The latest proposals for NSRL involve extensive reconfiguration of the station approaches at both ends, specifically for the reasons you state. That’s part of the reason it costs so much. There’s also a proposed intermediate station with better connections to the T which will take some of the pressure off of North and South Stations.
The North and South Station tracks would have new, underground platforms – it’s envisioned that the tunnel would begin before the station throat trackage to avoid fouling train movements into and out of the existing stations. The whole proposal is akin to what London did with Crossrail. It serves Paddington and Liverpool Street, both existing terminal stations on opposite sides of the central city, but with new underground platforms that don’t interfere with existing train movements.
>limited amount of resources
>greenfield subways vs. TBM-possible alignment with easement already prepared
Whatever the operational arguments, you’re not making an apples-apples comparison with NSRL in terms of capital scope.
They can operate efficiently without delays if they follow the practices of every other country around the world that’s connected regional rail together. In addition to building grade-separated junctions, there will be a less number of people deboarding/boarding at one time precisely because the NSRL covers a portion of through-trips, and the loading numbers are more balanced. A SEPTA regional rail train in Philadelphia can completely service a downtown station in around 3 minutes or less, with inefficient vestibule-style cars.
The Haverhill situation is solvable by utilizing the Wildcat branch more regularly and adding infill stops between Winchester and Mishawum, and rebuilding the stations long-term for 4-track capability.
Discontinuing the service to the stations south of Haverhill is bullshite — they’ve had rail service to Boston since the mid 1800’s — they are why the rail service still exists. The communities are built around their rail stations.
Boston is still a “hub” in a way that other cities aren’t — remember that all the RRs used to go to Park Street and were pushed out once the subway went underground. Thinking that any significant fraction of riders will go beyond their destination to the further station and then backtrack is asinine. Or are you planning to build a half-dozen new stations in Downtown Boston?
And if it takes the MBTA 5-7 minutes to service suburban stations, they aren’t going to do a terminal/hub one in three.
You wouldn’t need to cut service on the inner Haverhill though, especially from its current barebones service, you would only have to send additional reverse-peak trains via Lowell Line and Wildcat. A significant number of BON passengers will stay on the train to reach BOS and Back Bay-adjacent destinations, and vice versa, and the decrease in subway and concourse crowding alone is what makes NSRL completely worth it. One-seat suburb-suburb commutes are an ancillary benefit but will also be very viable with the link. If it takes 5-7 minutes to serve the average station then there’s more basic problems at play that aren’t being addressed.
Bulls***. All around: bulls***.
Sending the reverse-peak trains, WHICH SOME PEOPLE RIDE, via Wildcat is why I’m looking into how my town can withdraw from the MBTA. For cause.
Thinking that people would want a suburb-suburb commute is beyond asinine — exactly who wants this and why? How can you dismiss the reverse-peak ridership (which was real) and claim this phantom end-to-end need???
This is the farce of the Big Dig writ large, it will be an even bigger clusterf*ck than that was.
How about something simple, like a dedicated shuttlebus between BON & BOS?
Is your argument that spending on NSRL will somehow preclude any future spending on double-tracking lines? Because I don’t think that will be the case. What one line misses out on with the link doesn’t outweigh all the other benefits it will bring to all other lines. And what the Big Dig yielded for the NSRL was a completely clear underground easement that is eminently tunnelable using a TBM; it already did a lot of the heavy lifting. But don’t construe my main argument for it as being for the suburb-suburb commute; I stated clearly what should be touted as the main benefit. So launch the shuttle bus today; the demand it receives will clearly prove whether the NSRL is worth it as a worthy long-term project. Approximately zero people today think that the regional rail link in Philadelphia shouldn’t have been built in lieu of another line.
Two words: No Money.
The Feds don’t have it, the Commonwealth doesn’t have it, and the MBTA can’t manage/maintain what it already has. So the point is moot.
But cutting service on existing lines is not improving service.