# Possible revival of the Boston North-South Rail Link Project



## AmtrakMaineiac (Dec 20, 2022)

North-South Rail Link advocates look to get project back on track

Supporters of a North-South Rail Link project that’s been batted around for a century are dusting off the proposal and making another push, in hopes the incoming administration will show more interest in the pricey connection than the prior one.


----------



## b1xn00d (Dec 20, 2022)

One look at the MBTA commuter rail map makes the need for this tunnel crystal clear. That said, the priority right now should be electrifying those parts of the system that still use diesel engines IMO. The tunnel is only as useful as the number of trains that can pass through it, and as long as most trains in the area have diesel engines that number isn't likely to be very high, plus electrification is technically easier and less likely to rile up the NIMBYs.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 20, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> North-South Rail Link advocates look to get project back on track
> 
> Supporters of a North-South Rail Link project that’s been batted around for a century are dusting off the proposal and making another push, in hopes the incoming administration will show more interest in the pricey connection than the prior one.


Not gonna happen.
There just isn’t the political will for a project of this scope and size, especially with the looming I-90 Allston interchange project currently in the works.

It’s possible this could be on a 50-75 year timeline, but certainly not anytime soon.

Before anything like this should ever happen, they should electrify the entire network. Trains electrified and running 15 minute frequencies is more valuable than a NS rail link. If you have the money for the link, spend it elsewhere.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Dec 21, 2022)

I tend to agree with the above post. The time to build the NSRL was as part of the Central Artery Tunnel project (so called Big Dig). That opportunity came and went. I also agree that electrification of more of the network should be a higher priority.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2022)

b1xn00d said:


> One look at the MBTA commuter rail map makes the need for this tunnel crystal clear. That said, the priority right now should be electrifying those parts of the system that still use diesel engines IMO.


That would be the entire MBTA system at present since even where the tracks are electrified MBTA service runs on diesel!


> The tunnel is only as useful as the number of trains that can pass through it, and as long as most trains in the area have diesel engines that number isn't likely to be very high, plus electrification is technically easier and less likely to rile up the NIMBYs.


When there are thousands of internal combustion engine cars that are able to safely use the Ted Williams Tunnel I don't see why a few diesel trains cannot operate through a tunnel of similar length with properly designed air circulation system. Mind you I am not advocating such, but I don't see a persuasive technical argument there for electrification merely for that.


----------



## b1xn00d (Dec 21, 2022)

jis said:


> That would be the entire MBTA system at present since even where the tracks are electrified MBTA service runs on diesel!
> 
> When there are thousands of internal combustion engine cars that are able to safely use the Ted Williams Tunnel I don't see why a few diesel trains cannot operate through a tunnel of similar length with properly designed air circulation system. Mind you I am not advocating such, but I don't see a persuasive technical argument there for electrification merely for that.


It's certainly possible to design such a ventilation system. It just further drives up the cost of what will already be sn expensive project.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 21, 2022)

b1xn00d said:


> It's certainly possible to design such a ventilation system. It just further drives up the cost of what will already be sn expensive project.


As a country we don’t bat an eyelash to do this kind of expensive work for car related infrastructure.

Of course, for a project that could approach 20 billion, the money can and should be spent elsewhere, not that this project will ever be more than round table discussion.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2022)

b1xn00d said:


> It's certainly possible to design such a ventilation system. It just further drives up the cost of what will already be sn expensive project.


So ignoring my belief that it is better to electrify the whole system, tunnel or not, the immediate cost calculus for the tunnel would be whether the additional ventilation systems to handle diesel exhaust cost more or less than electrifying the relevant parts of the system. In some sense if electrifying is viewed as something that should be done anyway then this argument is irrelevant.

I just don't think that any funding discussion for the tunnel would be swayed this way or that based on the electrification issue. I have my doubts that this tunnel would be funded in my lifetime because the overall advantages that accrue other than addressing London/Paris/Philadelphia envy may not be viewed as persuasive enough.


----------



## Maglev (Dec 21, 2022)

When I want to go through Boston, I travel between Back Bay and North Station on the Orange line. Most people want to go to Boston, not through it, so I don't think this costly project is necessary.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 21, 2022)

If I understand correctly, the tunnel was eliminated from the Big Dig as a cost saving measure, which was incredibly stupid.

Diesels through the tunnel of this length should not be that big a deal. You have to have a fair amount of ventilation anyway to reduce the piston effect of trains going through the tunnel. I don't recall how long this project was, but didn't think it was that much. There are plenty of places in this world that operate frequent diesel services in tunnels.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 21, 2022)

George Harris said:


> If I understand correctly, the tunnel was eliminated from the Big Dig as a cost saving measure, which was incredibly stupid.
> 
> Diesels through the tunnel of this length should not be that big a deal. You have to have a fair amount of ventilation anyway to reduce the piston effect of trains going through the tunnel. I don't recall how long this project was, but didn't think it was that much. There are plenty of places in this world that operate frequent diesel services in tunnels.


Part of the plan includes a central station very close to the current Aquarium blue line station.
If it were just a through running tunnel, I really don't see the need for anything special ventilation wise, never mind electrification. 

But since there is a station involved, does that change anything? I don't know much about this.


----------



## b1xn00d (Dec 21, 2022)

Maglev said:


> When I want to go through Boston, I travel between Back Bay and North Station on the Orange line. Most people want to go to Boston, not through it, so I don't think this costly project is necessary.


Building the tunnel also greatly improves capacity at North and South Stations, though. Turning trains around at stub-end terminals takes a lot longer (=fewer trains per hour) then stopping just long enough to take on passengers before continuing through the tunnel.

Is capacity at North and South Stations an issue? I'm honestly don't know the area well enough to say, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. South Station didn't look very big the last time I was there, and the nearby real estate that would need to be condemned to add more tracks in its current stub-end configuration isn't cheap.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2022)

b1xn00d said:


> Is capacity at North and South Stations an issue? I'm honestly don't know the area well enough to say, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. South Station didn't look very big the last time I was there, and the nearby real estate that would need to be condemned to add more tracks in its current stub-end configuration isn't cheap.


Expansion of South Station to add 8 more platform tracks is already in motion.






South Expansion - Final Environmental Impact Report







www.mass.gov





Incidentally this expansion proposal explicitly recognizes the possibility that a North-South Tunnel will be built some day and accommodates its needs in the new track layout, by leaving space for future construction, should it ever materialize.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 21, 2022)

b1xn00d said:


> Building the tunnel also greatly improves capacity at North and South Stations, though. Turning trains around at stub-end terminals takes a lot longer (=fewer trains per hour) then stopping just long enough to take on passengers before continuing through the tunnel.
> 
> Is capacity at North and South Stations an issue? I'm honestly don't know the area well enough to say, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. South Station didn't look very big the last time I was there, and the nearby real estate that would need to be condemned to add more tracks in its current stub-end configuration isn't cheap.


For North S, this isn't a problem so much as the two drawbridges are. They need to be replaced.
At the moment, capacity is a minor issue, but by far the cheapest fix for this is simply electrify, and procure EMU which have faster accel/decel, and station dwell times decrease significantly.
Transitmatters did a whole thing about electrification here:








MBTA could electrify commuter rail network for between $800m and $1.5b — TransitMatters


MBTA could electrify commuter rail network for between $800m and $1.5b BOSTON, October 20, 2021 — The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority could electrify its commuter rail network for between $800 million and $1.5 billion, according to a new report from advocacy group TransitMatters out




transitmatters.org





It would be pennies compared to the cost of a N-S connect, and essentially transforms the regional rail network far more than the tunnel ever would. Not saying the tunnel doesn't have some real benefits, but the bang for the buck isn't there.


jis said:


> Expansion of South Station to add 8 more platform tracks is already in motion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps you can shed some light on this before I dive into what looks to be a substantial read, but I was always under the impression that the adjacent post office facility and getting that land was an issue with the official platform/track expansion. Has this been cleared up?

The current SS concourse project is nearing completion, and will look quite nice. Added platforms will certainly be huge.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Perhaps you can shed some light on this before I dive into what looks to be a substantial read, but I was always under the impression that the adjacent post office facility and getting that land was an issue with the official platform/track expansion. Has this been cleared up?


Don't know the latest. The last I heard Massport had initiated acquisition of the Post Office land and the adjacent land owned by Army Corp of Engineers.


----------



## Rambling Robert (Dec 22, 2022)

_it was four years ago with that I called in to the WGBH radio station (2 million audience) to talk with then mayor Marty Walsh, and he was very receptive him having a. conversation with the governor Baker regarding adding better bus service from south station the north station, including adding buses down into the new seaport area because if you’re working gig work say at the Boston convention center - which has up to 1000 gig workers alone plus can conventioneers - existing but there is just a morning bus and an evening bus nothing in between and nothing after seven 7:00PM Bor before 7:30 AM It’s the 5 Bus.

A while later after speaking with Mayor Walsh I got into North Station out in the front and there were tons of buses all of a sudden, but they were designated to private companies.. I notice a few going to the new Seaport District. One building in the Seaport District offered express trips to South Station and off peak offered rides on demand._

The real BEST WAY to and from BOS to BON is Taxi!

$15 with tip.


----------



## west point (Dec 22, 2022)

So why is the lower level of South station not used?


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

west point said:


> So why is the lower level of South station not used?


What is this "lower level of South Station" that you allude to? The one that is yet to be proposed, planned, funded and built? Even the North-South Rail Link does not exactly propose building a "lower level South Station".


----------



## west point (Dec 22, 2022)

jis said:


> What is this "lower level of South Station" that you allude to? The one that is yet to be proposed, planned, funded and built? Even the North-South Rail Link does not exactly propose building a "lower level South Station".


In the original configuration, two tracks came off each approach to join into a four-track line and then run under the main platforms in a two-track loop. These tracks were never put into service, and later became a parking lot and bowling alley for employees.[10]

My understanding was it never used due to loco smoke.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Dec 22, 2022)

jis said:


> What is this "lower level of South Station" that you allude to? The one that is yet to be proposed, planned, funded and built? Even the North-South Rail Link does not exactly propose building a "lower level South Station".


There was originally a loop track under South Station which has never been used and I believe was (a) incompatible with modern day equipment and (b) partially destroyed by later construction projects, either the Big Dig or other projects in the area. That may be the "lower level" being referred to.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> There was originally a loop track under South Station which has never been used and I believe was (a) incompatible with modern day equipment and (b) partially destroyed by later construction projects, either the Big Dig or other projects in the area. That may be the "lower level" being referred to.


I think when South Station track layout was rebuilt at the time of electrification any possibility of reviving use of that infrastructure was destroyed. So presumably they are not used because it does not exist anymore.


----------



## Bostontoallpoints (Dec 22, 2022)

As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

Bostontoallpoints said:


> As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.


So lack of money was not an issue then?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 22, 2022)

Bostontoallpoints said:


> As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.


In 87 President Reagan vetoed funding for the Central Artery Project, specifically citing the inclusion of a rail connection. The EMU procurement was not the issue.

Though everything you say regarding them being a prerequisite is true.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> In 87 President Reagan vetoed funding for the Central Artery Project, specifically citing the inclusion of a rail connection. The EMU procurement was not an issue.
> 
> Though everything you say regarding them being a prerequisite is true.


What a difference 30 years makes! Today requiring DEMU would be a non-issue since scads of them are available off the shelf. It was very different in the '80s. Heck US didn;t even have an off the shelf DMU available, let alone a DEMU or EDMU;


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 22, 2022)

jis said:


> What a difference 30 years makes! Today requiring DEMU would be a non-issue since scads of them are available off the shelf. It was very different in the '80s. Heck US didn;t even have an off the shelf DMU available, let alone a DEMU or EDMU;


I suppose it might have been an issue if the project had gotten that far, but I was under the impression that the tunnel was vetoed for the sake it was a rail tunnel and that they did not want to fund rail infrastructure. If I’m wrong, let me know.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I suppose it might have been an issue if the project had gotten that far, but I was under the impression that the tunnel was vetoed for the sake it was a rail tunnel and that they did not want to fund rail infrastructure. If I’m wrong, let me know.


I have no idea what happened back then I was barely involved in rail advocacy, just having joined NARP a few years before that. President Raegan was bit of a disaster for passenger railroad and specifically Amtrak specially in the Stockman era IIRC.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 22, 2022)

jis said:


> I have no idea what happened back then I was barely involved in rail advocacy, just having joined NARP a few years before that. President Raegan was bit of a disaster for passenger railroad and specifically Amtrak specially in the Stockman era IIRC.


I see.

At this point, if even the biggest rail advocates in Boston have trouble universally backing a N-S connector, there is NO way its gonna fly with general public, who already have a massive mistrust of anything transportation related in Boston. 

We're already spending the big bucks on the Allston interchange. Lets spend small to medium bucks on electrification and EMU procurement.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> At this point, if even the biggest rail advocates in Boston have trouble universally backing a N-S connector, there is NO way its gonna fly with general public, who already have a massive mistrust of anything transportation related in Boston.


RPA incidentally, does actively support the N-S Rail Link. It has an active working group on the subject, and is on board with this attempt to get things moving again.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 22, 2022)

jis said:


> RPA incidentally, does actively support the N-S Rail Link. It has an active working group on the subject, and is on board with this attempt to get things moving again.


Yeah, I saw that. Transitmatters also supports the link.

I think that in a broad sense, with money, and the currency of political will being no object, I support it too.
Unfortunately, both of those things are in short supply. 
If your average rail-friendly person has trouble completely backing it, how much more will the average person who knows nothing have trouble getting behind it.


----------



## railiner (Dec 22, 2022)

jis said:


> It was very different in the '80s. Heck US didn;t even have an off the shelf DMU available, let alone a DEMU or EDMU;











Budd SPV-2000 - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2022)

railiner said:


> Budd SPV-2000 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. Though they were so unreliable that often they were unusable. 

My big complaint with the ones I rode on MNRR is that they reeked of diesel exhaust inside. They also shook like a Whale in heat when accelerating


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 22, 2022)

Stupid question maybe, but wouldn't a rail tunnel be better (maybe I haven't dug deep enough into the proposals) be better if it ran beyond North Station to a point further north (obviously electrified) to avoid bridges and harbors, etc? It it was for commuter rail and only occasional Amtrak use then a lot of stations could be added. Perhaps even starting south of South Station as well? Obviously that's a crazy big long-term project idea.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 22, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Stupid question maybe, but wouldn't a rail tunnel be better (maybe I haven't dug deep enough into the proposals) be better if it ran beyond North Station to a point further north (obviously electrified) to avoid bridges and harbors, etc? It it was for commuter rail and only occasional Amtrak use then a lot of stations could be added. Perhaps even starting south of South Station as well? Obviously that's a crazy big long-term project idea.


The most recent proposal I read had the tunnel running from beyond the Charles River to just before Back* Bay station (southbound).


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 22, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> The most recent proposal I read had the tunnel running from beyond the Charles River to just before Bay Bay station (southbound).


Where's Bay Bay station? The Bay (the Canadian Store, from Hudsons Bay)? Hudsons Bay? Probably near Bank Banque Banc....



(Sorry, I couldn't resist)


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 22, 2022)

Bostontoallpoints said:


> As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.


I think that maybe with Tier IV diesels, exhaust emissions aren't the problem they used to be.

BTW, MARC runs diesels through the Baltimore tunnels with no problems, doing this many times a day. And they were doing it 20 years ago when diesel fumes were a lot worse than they are now.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 22, 2022)

Bostontoallpoints said:


> As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.


Diesel trains in underground stations is done in other parts of the world. Good example: Taipei Main Station. At the time we were there the East Coast Line was diesel operated (it has since been electrified) and their top trains were 12 car DMU's. Secondary trains were diesel engine hauled. Yes, you could smell diesel smoke particularly with the DMU trains as they accelerated out of the station, but it was cleared out fairly promptly. It is a design issue, not a go / no go issue. Again, there is no real issue with grades between the two types if both are MU. Likewise, for locomotive powered trains there would also be no issue, other than it it desirable to have lower maximum grades with locomotive hauled trains due to a lower percentage of powered axles. The reasons given in this realm for dropping the tunnel option were excuses only.


----------



## Fenway (Dec 23, 2022)

It SHOULD have been done as part of the Big Dig but Tip O'Neill never saw any merit to it.

Electrification of MBTA CR has to be taken in baby steps starting with procuring hybrid equipment for the Providence/Stoughton line and then exploring other lines that could be electrified.

But the bigger problem is trying to predict commuter traffic as the 21st Century evolves. The Seaport, Boston Landing and Assembly Row didn't exist 20 years ago and now they are thriving.

I was flabbergasted when the T released the fare entry stats of the 63 gated stations for October
_
Harvard (Red Line) was the busiest station out of 63 in October 2022.
*South Station (Red Line, Silver Line)** was the 2nd busiest station out of 63 in October 2022.
North Station (Green Line, Orange Line) was the 3rd busiest station out of 63 in October 2022.*
Riverside (Green Line) was the 63rd busiest station out of 63 in October 2022._

North and South Stations need to have a direct connection.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 23, 2022)

Fenway said:


> Electrification of MBTA CR has to be taken in baby steps starting with procuring hybrid equipment for the Providence/Stoughton line and then exploring other lines that could be electrified.


I'm not sure why you say this has to be the case; I disagree.
I understand that you can't do something like this overnight, but I really don't understand why it can't be done in 5 years.
Furthermore, if its going to happen in the first place, it should be done right. Hybrid/battery options are unfavorable to overhead 90% of the time.

Worcester, Fitchburg, Rockport/Newburyport, Lowell, Haverhill, and South Coast Rail should all receive overhead. Needham Line should really just be an extension of the Orange Line, and Fairmont should probably resemble some form of rapid transit rather than commuter rail or even regional rail model. EMU's can achieve that (even DMU's can get the job done).


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Dec 24, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Worcester, Fitchburg, Rockport/Newburyport, Lowell, Haverhill, and South Coast Rail should all receive overhead. Needham Line should really just be an extension of the Orange Line, and Fairmont should probably resemble some form of rapid transit rather than commuter rail or even regional rail model. EMU's can achieve that (even DMU's can get the job done).


I agree with that list except for South Coast, I doubt if that will ever have the ridership to justify electrification, nor would any of the former Old Colony lines. Rockport/Newburyport at least as far as Beverly to start with more frequent service for that portion of the line. 

I have heard talk of making the Fairmount a branch of the Red Line although that would probably result in too much congestion in the downtown and Cambridge tunnels with now 3 branches running through it. The Needham line conversion to heavy rail might be tough as I'm not sure the right of way can handle a second track.


----------



## Fenway (Dec 25, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I'm not sure why you say this has to be the case; I disagree.
> I understand that you can't do something like this overnight, but I really don't understand why it can't be done in 5 years.
> Furthermore, if its going to happen in the first place, it should be done right. Hybrid/battery options are unfavorable to overhead 90% of the time.
> 
> Worcester, Fitchburg, Rockport/Newburyport, Lowell, Haverhill, and South Coast Rail should all receive overhead. Needham Line should really just be an extension of the Orange Line, and Fairmont should probably resemble some form of rapid transit rather than commuter rail or even regional rail model. EMU's can achieve that (even DMU's can get the job done).



The NIMBY's will fight overhead - good luck getting it approved in Concord near Walden Pond on the Fitchburg line.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 25, 2022)

Fenway said:


> The NIMBY's will fight overhead - good luck getting it approved in Concord near Walden Pond on the Fitchburg line.


funny, I grew up right there, and know nearly every person who lives in that immediate area.

I disagree with your assumption about them. Especially if it means quieter trains overall.


----------



## jis (Dec 25, 2022)

It should also be remembered that just because there are NIBYs does not mean all projects should abandoned out of the gate. NIMBYs actually lose quite often too. Witness Brightline in Florida.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 25, 2022)

Fenway said:


> The NIMBY's will fight overhead - good luck getting it approved in Concord near Walden Pond on the Fitchburg line.


Why should NIMBY's be all in a tizzy about overhead wire? The Baltimore Light Rail runs through some pretty fancy areas, and no one made a stink about that, and the overhead wires don't really make much of a difference in the viewshed, either. There was one station that was abandoned because of NIMBY concern about "loot rail," i.e., riff raff from the inner city riding up to rob all those fancy houses, which is silly, because, (1) a lot of the riff raff have cars, anyway, and don't need a light rail to come to the neighborhood, and (2) most robberies happen in the middle of the night, when the light rail isn't running.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 25, 2022)

I know there have been fights against electrification - iirc, CalTrain was one of them and there were objections in the UK on some historic bridges. Of course, Boston's 70's subway extension plans were written up as case history of NIMBY objections (and don't get me started on mindless YIMBYism...) in urban planning books. But I don't see why electrification would/should do that - unless more trains brings out fear of more development - which is pushed by some - and more crime. But generally more frequent, faster and quieter trains would be welcomed, especially in a more environmentally conscious part of the country.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 25, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Why should NIMBY's be all in a tizzy about overhead wire? The Baltimore Light Rail runs through some pretty fancy areas, and no one made a stink about that, and the overhead wires don't really make much of a difference in the viewshed, either. There was one station that was abandoned because of NIMBY concern about "loot rail," i.e., riff raff from the inner city riding up to rob all those fancy houses, which is silly, because, (1) a lot of the riff raff have cars, anyway, and don't need a light rail to come to the neighborhood, and (2) most robberies happen in the middle of the night, when the light rail isn't running.


Burglaries, however, happen during daytime hours since that's when people are out (spoken from knowledge as victim of burglary - in the inner city, however).


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Dec 25, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I know there have been fights against electrification - iirc, CalTrain was one of them and there were objections in the UK on some historic bridges. Of course, Boston's 70's subway extension plans were written up as case history of NIMBY objections (and don't get me started on mindless YIMBYism...) in urban planning books. But I don't see why electrification would/should do that - unless more trains brings out fear of more development - which is pushed by some - and more crime. But generally more frequent, faster and quieter trains would be welcomed, especially in a more environmentally conscious part of the country.


Moreover, the area in question (Walden Pond, and the couple miles between Lincoln and Concord) is extremely forested. Very few people live within house view of the tracks. I could and still can hear the the rumbling of diesels and the rattling of Comet cars twice an hour as trains go by, as far as miles away.

There will be no issues with NIMBY's for electrification in this area beyond a few environmental review things because of Walden park. Given that you're replacing diesel trains with electric ones though, its hard to argue against it.
In general, much the Fitchburg line is very removed.


----------



## Rambling Robert (Dec 26, 2022)

I moved to Massachusetts when Mike Dukakis was governor the first time (1975 - 1979). He’s continuing stated that the MBTA has a big hole in it. Mike it’s not a hole - it’s a hub: the hub of the universe!!!

haha. What ever happened to calling Boston “The Hub of the Universe”?

But I’m not NIMBY BUT - the Rockport line was using busses for a YEAR and a half to build a new bridge THEN more busses during speed control installation and busses
,.. more stuff. But unless electrication was of the electrical overhead can be constructed without disrupting rail service - I think Rockport should get a pass for a while.

As far as north south connectivity - did you know that you can walk from the .Red line platform directly to and from the Orange line platform???

So from BOS to BON all you need is the Orange line.
Another quote that Dukakis made into an official Massachusetts bumper sticker - that would fit for all NIMBY folk: “A Little Courtesy Won’t Kill You”. Didn’t he retract it?


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Dec 26, 2022)

Rambling Robert said:


> So from BOS to BON all you need is the Orange line.


Actually from BBY to BON. OK going northbound, if you are heading southbound on a Regional you miss the opportunity to get a good seat as you would by boarding at BOS. Also not great if you are shlepping lots of luggage. If I have the time and not much luggage I generally take the green or orange then red line to go to BOS for that reason and because BOS is a much nicer place to wait than the BBY dungeon.

However I don't think the NSRL is justified by the handful of Amtrak passengers transferring from Downeaster to NEC (or to commuter rail). It is more to provide connectivity between towns on the north and south sides plus the benefits of having trains run through instead of laying over which improves their productivity.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Dec 26, 2022)

jis said:


> They also shook like a Whale in heat when accelerating


You make that sound like a bad thing...


----------

