South Station Expansion Project Discussion

Would there be space at/near the airport for the annex? With a lack of rail usage by the postal service, it seems like expanding what they have at Logan would make more sense.

It could be that property near the airport is considered too expensive, particularly if the government bought the South Station property outright; I think the GSA has a lot of say in such cases.

They were supposed to swap a smaller state owned property in south boston near the convention center. The obvious solution is a federal grant to MA for the difference in value, which they hand over to the PO. PO uses the money towards unfunded pensions or package handling equipment.

The PO mail volume is way down, and they opened multiple processing centers in suburbs, some of which have been shuttered. So they shouldn't need as much space in Boston as they needed in 1970. With computerization, they should be able to change processing centers from one place to another without changing the zip codes.

Maybe the Post Office can use Commuter Rail trains to drop off mail using robots someday.

USPS volume isn’t down as dramatically as you’d think. Amazon uses USPS for a fair bit of its last-mile stuff.

Not that long ago, when you went to the post office, there was a separate slot for mail going to a few neighboring towns as well as within the town served by the post office. For that mail they promised next day delivery.

All that was made possible with regional processing centers. With a small amount of publicizing, that benefit was eliminated "to save money." So the South Station mail facility may well be handling more mail than before where, now, "regional" mail is mixed with out of state mail and dropped off at larger centers for "single" processing and the mail sorted by town sent back to the suburbs, sometimes many miles away .

The question arises, would a single regional facility for say the Boston area plus past Lowell and Framingham and Brockton be better off in East Boston close to the airport, or where it is today? Your answer, if you wish to comment, may well be different "today" given the Sumner Tunnel closure.

Expansion above ground should not be necessary if the entire CR operation were moved underground, at both North and South station. All trains run through from North of Boston to South/West of Boston destinations, and only 2 platforms needed at each location. Just like the Crossrail stations at Paddington and Liverpool St in London, that now handle up to 24 trains per hour in each direction. Crossrail cost about $20bn in the end but it is a far more extensive underground system than Boston would need (Crossrail has 8 underground stations, and about 35 miles of tunnel).
Above ground only needed for Amtrak services (and probably only at South Station - DE could run through to NYC).

There is another topic for North-South Rail Link. And this is MA, it would cost more than in London.

Based on what data?

Big Dig
Second Avenue Subway
East Side Access
California High Speed Rail

Major infrastructure projects in the US these days have a pronounced tendency to be far more expensive and take far longer to finish than comparable projects overseas.

Based on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "track" record. I've lived here a long time and it is EVERY TIME there is a major project it goes way over. The only thing about the Big Dig that did not go over budget / time significantly was the Third Harbor Tunnel, and that was built in a shipyard in another state and floated into place. Then they wouldn't let the public use it for several years after it was built!

Crossrail was *far* more extensive than anything needed in Boston. 26 miles of deep level (bored) tunnels, 10 completely new underground stations - 8 deep level, 5 with very complex interchange tunnels with other tube and mainline, 70 nine car EMU sets, and full refurbishment of 31 existing stations along the route. London is one of *the* most expensive cities in the world to build in - land there is significantly more expensive than Boston.

In comparison, Boston needs only 2 new stations, both below ground, the right of way along the Big Dig exists, and the total tunneling would be less than 4 miles. Wiring the commuter rail could also now be a lot less expensive if the MBTA buys BEMU's (Battery Electric from Stadler's CA plant - see the Stadler FLIRT AKKU which can run 100 miles on battery, and charge up in 15 minutes under catenary).

Green line ridiculousness aside, the state doesn't have that bad a record of projects. The Big Dig, despite some of it's critics claiming it went from 2bn to 14bn neatly avoid that the 2bn was never a serious number. The number was already 12bn by the time the project got properly started in the mid 90's. And lets remember how the bridges on I93 were replaced at a very low cost inside 6 weeks. It can be done.

MBTA3247 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 9:17 pm Big Dig
Second Avenue Subway
East Side Access
California High Speed Rail

Major infrastructure projects in the US these days have a pronounced tendency to be far more expensive and take far longer to finish than comparable projects overseas.

Should add the Fore River Bridge in Quincy. How long was that a "temporary bridge"?

BandA wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:27 am Based on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "track" record. I've lived here a long time and it is EVERY TIME there is a major project it goes way over. The only thing about the Big Dig that did not go over budget / time significantly was the Third Harbor Tunnel, and that was built in a shipyard in another state and floated into place. Then they wouldn't let the public use it for several years after it was built!

The public wasn’t allowed to use it because South Boston didn’t want to see its streets overrun with traffic. It was almost 10 years before the connections between I-90 and the tunnel were built. Local residents on each side were able to use the tunnel provided they had a sticker. Commercial vehicles were too.

Back to rail: A cross-harbor rail component should’ve been built with it, but I guess it got cut early in the process.

CSRR573 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 10:13 am Should add the Fore River Bridge in Quincy. How long was that a "temporary bridge"?

Around 15 years. I remember riding over it in 2004 and I don’t think the new bridge opened until 2019.