BOSTON — To see what commuter rail in Boston might look like in the year 2040, you could look over the shoulders of those at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation who are at their computers, running sophisticated simulations that will soon reveal a picture of that future.
The project is known as Rail Vision, and it’s headed by Scott Hamwey, manager of transit planning for MassDOT. “By the end of this spring, we’ll be coming back to our advisory committee, our board, and the public to show the results of these analyses,” he says.
The two-year project comes when the commuter lines of Boston’s Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority are losing ridership even as the region’s economy is booming, its population growing, and its traffic congestion is rated as the worst in the U.S. “Commuter rail is an asset that we can be better leveraging,” Hamwey tells Trains News Wire. “It’s a vast network of infrastructure and service, yet it only carries about nine percent of our passenger trips.”
The agency’s planning is also driven by the upcoming expiration of the MBTA’s operating contract with Keolis Commuter Services in 2022. The state’s procurement process will begin next year, and Hamwey explains that the next contractor will have to operate trains around a lot of changes and construction. The study will help inform the contract bidders.
One of the first steps in the Rail Vision process was to conduct a peer review of 16 U.S. and international commuter rail systems, ranging from New York to California and Paris to Singapore. Of those, only two other systems operate solely with diesel-powered trains, and one of those — Caltrain — is in the process of electrifying its system. No Boston commuter rail line is electrified, although that option is open.
Most other systems provide more frequent train service and operate in higher-density areas. “One of the big things we learned is that our network is unique in its geographic scope relative to how big the urban environment is that it serves,” says Hamwey.
Commuter rail in Boston runs from two major terminals, North Station and South Station, radiating out along 14 rail lines. The system covers 388 route-miles and serves 138 stations, cobbled together from the remains of railroads past: the New York, New Haven & Hartford; Boston & Maine; Boston & Albany; New York Central; and Penn Central.
Recently, Hamwey’s team provided seven alternatives for public comment and review by the advisory board. The simplest seeks only to optimize the existing system with more frequent service at 30 or 60 minute intervals in both directions, bringing some order to the randomness of current schedules.
Two plans are referred to as regional rail alternatives, which would provide serve key stations such as Fitchburg, Lowell, Route 128, and Braintree at 15-minute intervals, while intermediate stations would see trains every 30 or 60 minutes. Of these two options, one envisions full electrification of the commuter rail system with service provided by electric multiple-unit (EMU) equipment.
A different pair of options are the urban rail alternatives. They are designed to provide frequent, all-day service to inner-core stations. Those stations would be served by either diesel multiple-unit (DMU) or EMU trains. Those plans also require adding track capacity to South Station to handle the additional train frequency.
The most expensive plan includes full system electrification, combines both urban rail and regional rail, and construction of the North-South Rail Link to allow run-through service between the city’s two terminals. Finally, a seventh alternative treats each line independently, tailoring service to match specific needs for those commuters, and includes South Station expansion.
This is where the computer simulation comes in: to put more detail and analysis into each option. A first pass looks at each plan against the existing infrastructure. Will stretches of single track limit train frequency? How will current station capacity, signal systems, and interlockings affect proposed operations? The answers will reveal, as Hamwey phrases it, whether these plans will work “in the real world.”
A second model incorporates projected population and employment growth by 2040, detailed down to thousands of small zones. Then, a forward-looking simulation, which Hamwey calls the Regional Dynamic Model, “will give us some sense of how economic activity in the region might shift in response to transportation investment.” Understanding how one affects the other will reveal a more complete picture of what 2040 will look like.
The results of these model runs will also show the estimated costs for needed infrastructure development and predict how each would effect changes in ridership.
These simulations are already running and will continue through the spring. “Then we need to have a conversation over the second half of the year to figure out what the vision is that the authority and the Board will move towards,” Hamwey explains. He says the most likely outcome will be some combination of elements from the seven alternatives.
to
Here’s a concept: New Hampshire joins MBTA, rail service extended north from Lowell to downtown Nashua, Londonderry (park & ride with connecting shuttle bus to Manchester Boston Regional Airport) downtown Manchester, Hooksett (park & ride adjacent to SNHU with arterial road connecting to Route 3 & I-93) Bow (park & ride at I-93 & I-89 junction), downtown Concord (transportation center that consolidates rail & bus terminal), then terminus at Concord north with park & ride connecting I-93 at exit 16 interchange). Right of way is already in place and Nashua, Manchester & Concord are already thriving gentrified downtown’s. Bay stater’s keep moving north in search of affordable housing. We can’t just add lane after lane to I-93. Only snag is the New Hampshire state legislature are notorious skinflints when the word “rail” comes up. A “congestion pricing” toll increase on I-93 and the Everett Turnpike, combined with a gas tax surcharge devoted to commuter rail could fund this project.
William Allen is correct: there is a North Station – South Station connector already in place and in use for equipment moves: an old Boston & Albany freight line. A train arriving at South Station would back out about 4 miles to Allston, then head over the connector, which runs right through the MIT campus, head into North Station, and then run north. This route uses the existing stations whereas the tunnel line would have new underground stations in the vicinity of North Station and South Station. Back in the 1950s I saw freight trains with 75 – 100 cars running on this line. It could be upgraded and put into use very easily and inexpensively.
Why can’t they use the North/South connection they already have??? They move equipment almost daily over this track. It could be used as a shuttle service. It’s already in place!
As a former Boston resident, it is beyond me why a tunnel wasn’t part of the “big dig”. Only in America!
North-South Rail Link allows an uninterrupted corridor for passengers from northern Maine to south Florida, with lots and lots of potential 1- and 2- seat ride options to large parts of the country, with innumerable city pairs.
It should not cost billions and billions to build the North-South rail link.
The biggest value of the North-South rail link would be doubling patronage on north side commuter rail – the result of a one-seat ride to the financial district and back bay. That’s what happens when people don’t have to transfer: ridership doubles. That’s why the existing MBTA options are not really a solution but a pain point and source of a lot of extra wasted journey time.
Christophe – In your post you make two points (one per paragraph). Both are completely wrong.
North Station has two connecting MBTA transit lines and also is within walking distance of much of the downtown. Bringing north side suburbanites to South Station and Back Bay station won’t double the ridership. It might bump ridership up a bit. No, not double it.
Why doesn’t the MBTA get its current system running correctly before it starts planning for 2040. It is arguably the most screwed up commuter system in the country.
The proposed North Station – South Station rail link would be marginally useful if it could be built for say, a hundred million or so. The billions upon billions of billions of dollars (and several decades) it would cost would accomplish very little. The majority (not all) of MBTA South Station trains call at Back Bay, as do all Amtrak trains. From Back Bay to North Station, take the Orange Line subway. Problem solved for no expenditure of billions and is available as we speak.
Aside from the time (decades) and the cost (mega billions) I’m not sure if the North Station – South Station rail link would even be possible to build for any amount of time and money.
Ian, there is a people mover between South and North Stations, called MBTA. Been there since a hundred or so years ago, when it was called the MTA, as in the song “Charlie of the MTA”.
To whit: (a) South Station to North Station, start on the Red Line then change to a choice of Green Line (at Park Street) or Orange Line (at Downtown Crossing).
To whit: (b) Back Bay to North Station, Orange Line direct, no change.
Michael, yes a connection between the stations would be very efficient for commuter rail, as in Philadelphia. It simply can’t be done in Boston for any amount of money. Even if the $$$ were available, I’d pour it into rebuilding the Green Line which runs as if it was built 125 years ago, which it was. More people are crush-loaded onto the Green Line every day than the population of China and India combined.
We can’t even afford to maintain what we built 40,50,60 years ago let alone build something new these days . Permits , studies , cost and NIMBYs keep us from building anything in this country today . The US turned its noise up at rail transportation years ago and now that it is needed it is to expensive !!!
The tunnel to connect the 2 downtown Phily stub-end terminals has made the system very efficient to the point that the old Reading terminal was replaced with a 4 track thru station and train reversing operations were virtually eliminated. The same could be done for Boston.
Has anybody seriously thought about what it might cost to build a people mover between North and South Station?
To put 2040 into perspective, the centennial of the motion picture “Casablanca” will be approaching the following year.
Charles, it’s my understanding that the Big Dig slurry walls are deep enough to run the N/S link beneath the roadway. That said, Paris does not have direct rail between its major stations, one must take the RER, Metro or a taxi. You learn to live with it.