Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Ruairi said:
November 30: what happened
December 9: what will happen
Click to expand...
Did we get the specific "What Happened" report on the 30th? There's been a lot of control board type news, but did we get the "real" report that was promised for "before Thanksgiving"/Nov 30th?
 
Arlington said:
Did we get the specific "What Happened" report on the 30th? There's been a lot of control board type news, but did we get the "real" report that was promised for "before Thanksgiving"/Nov 30th?
Click to expand...

Nicole Dungca, the Globe's transpo reporter, is live tweeting the meeting right now.

https://twitter.com/ndungca

Joseph Aiello, the fiscal board chairman: "We did not invest in T staff. We did not have adequate T staff."

BRG consultant: More MBTA staff should have been involved. "Nobody is going to be concerned about owner's project any more than the owner."

MBTA didn't do best practices with CM/GC. Should have had only a few phases of project in negotiation, but MBTA made 7 phases.

Yet another consultant says that some suggestions that could have cut down on costs were rejected, but doesn't go into specifics.

Yeager says there wasn't enough training on the procurement process for the construction manager and the MBTA.

Yaeger, other consultant, says current procurement process is reasonable in other contexts, but not best for Green Line extension.

Looking at the faces of all on the MassDOT board and people have some veerrry bleak looks right now.

Basically, Rodgers is saying the MBTA was using a new, untested method of procurement for one of its most important/biggest projects

Rodgers: “You have a very complex project … and it’s schedule driven, and you’re trying a new method as a pilot project.”

Consultant Terence Rodgers now talks problems with procurement process. Wrote a bit about some of its issues in Sept https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-extension/2GIx45SiQdXotzJZJtmB5N/story.html …

Lang points out that there were 3 contractors creating budgets for same project, and they weren't communicating with each other.

Control board member Brian Lang is using a tone that I would describe as my "Am I in crazy town?" tone.

Terry Yeager is the consultant from Berkeley Research Group that's speaking, by the way. Will use his name from now on.

Consultant says $2.5 billion to $3 billion is "relatively safe" range for this budget.

Wow. "I'm not convinced that a reliable budget has been produced today," consultant says.

Another Berkeley Research Group consultant says MBTA could have had a "reliable budget" as far back as 2012, but they didn't

Original project budget in 2010: About $1 billion.

Consultant says that MBTA had concerns about cost as far back as end of 2014, when they were awarding more contracts.

Consultant says they need to look into the schedule because it shouldn't be the driving force.

Consultant: The project was "excessively schedule driven," did not have a reliable budget, and didn't use procurement process well.

Consultant who looked into problems of Green Line extension: There is no silver bullet. LOTS of problems.

The MBTA had about four full-time positions to oversee all the contractors for this massive project, according to MassDOT.

Well. Individual Green Line contracts were not approved by board, just then-general manager Beverly Scott.
Click to expand...

Btw, today is Nov 30, lol.
 
Last edited:
Who knows...maybe they will implement a VMT tax that will pay for all of our infrastructure problems.

EDIT:

Nicole Dungca ‏@ndungca 1m1 minute ago

Consultant says that MBTA had concerns about cost as far back as end of 2014, when they were awarding more contracts.
Click to expand...

Nicole Dungca ‏@ndungca 47s47 seconds ago

Original project budget in 2010: About $1 billion.
Click to expand...
 
bigeman312 said:
Who knows...maybe they will implement a VMT tax that will pay for all of our infrastructure problems.
Click to expand...
I think everyone (including Baker himself and most of the legislature) expects a long/loud discussion of how to manage costs better--and then serious looks at T reform before any new taxes.

The number of "car voters" probably roughly tracks car usage for commutes so call it about 80% of voters, and probably still a majority pro-auto in the Democratic primaries in all but the most urban+progressive district.

In most districts in Mass, we have a progressive majority in favor of having a large, accessible, moderate-fare, transit system, and willing to force more efficient/greener grid and autos, but Beacon Hills Democrats will tell you that SOV users wouldn't stand for a VMT-first approach to "solving" the T's problems.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
I think everyone (including Baker himself and most of the legislature) expects a long/loud discussion of how to manage costs better before any new taxes. The number of "car voters" probably roughly tracks car usage for commutes, or about 80% of voters. We have a progressive majority in favor of having a large, accessible, moderate-fare, transit system, and willing to force more efficient/greener grid and autos, but Beacon Hills Democrats will tell you that SOV users wouldn't stand for a VMT-first approach to "solving" the T's problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. It was tongue-in-cheek.

Thanks for the live-tweet link, data. She has been great so far.
 
Something is still very wrong about how we build rail (in the USA; in MA) if the "real" number is 2.5b to 3b to add a 3rd & 4th track to a 4-track ROW that the MBTA already owned.
 
Arlington said:
Something is still very wrong about how we build rail (in the USA; in MA) if the "real" number is 2.5b to 3b to add a 3rd & 4th track to a 4-track ROW that the MBTA already owned.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the entire country, as much as it is a local problem.

How Much Do Rail Transit Projects Cost to Build and Operate?

The cost of recent surface light rail lines has ranged from a low of $43 million per mile in Norfolk, VA to a high of $204 million per mile for the new Milwaukie line in Portland. Los Angeles's Crenshaw Line , which includes short subway sections, clocks in at $165 million per mile. In Toronto, the Eglinton LRT line, which consists of almost a 50/50 split between surface and subway operation, is estimated to cost C$403 million per mile, which as of May 2012 was about equal to US$400 million per mile. In contrast, the Canada Line in Vancouver, which is about 70% underground with most of the rest being elevated, only cost C$177 million per mile - a low amount attributed to its cut-and-cover construction and very short station platforms (at 50m they can only accommodate two car train sets).
Click to expand...

Compare that to the current Green Line estimates: ~$600 million per mile. That's off the charts! For, as you said, an existing right-of-way.
 
So this extension is court mandated, but at some point the cost is going to outweigh the legal repercussions of not implementing the GLX.
 
That really depends on what the legal repercussions of not implementing the Green Line extension. I figure that the state would just get new mitigation projects to do and Somerville would become incredibly upset and most likely sue the state.

The Green Line Extension is going to get built, it literally has to be built.
 
Keep in mind that they got out of building nearly every single legally-mandated Big Dig mitigation project. Arborway restoration. Red-Blue.

Question: when are they scheduled to be done with the work that they are currently doing? What will the physical status of this project/ROW be at that time?
 
So let me get this straight. The MBTA basically used a portion of the money that could be used for this extension to hire consultants to tell them how bad they are at budgeting but then offered no solution. Money well spent...So I guess the next step is to fund a new study to replace the old study on the impact of this extension.
 
bigeman312 said:
Keep in mind that they got out of building nearly every single legally-mandated Big Dig mitigation project. Arborway restoration. Red-Blue.
Click to expand...

Hey they built the "more parking" part of the mitigation.

Because nothing saves the environment like more parking.
 
So are they definitely completing Lechmere, Union Sq, and Washington, but the rest is in question?
 
I think they have to or they lose all of the federal money they have been awarded for the project so far. But I do not know for sure that is the case.
 
citylover94 said:
I think they have to or they lose all of the federal money they have been awarded for the project so far. But I do not know for sure that is the case.
Click to expand...

Correct. They must spend it or return it...all of it. And they have been spending it, on all that culvert and bridge work that's been blitzing along for the past year. The state contribution is staggered out over more fiscal years than the feds, so the fed money is front-loaded.

So, yes, they are literally too far along to back out. Backing out means returning the unspent fed money and writing a check from the state coffers for the fed money already spent. It means breaking dozens of existing construction contracts with stiff penalties. Which I bet are extra-special stiff because of this "money-saving!" design-bid process they used. It means advertising new contracts to stitch up what's already been overturned with shovels. It means long, drawn-out legal fees for the suits that get filed for backing out (note: and if Tufts is in the mix directly or indirectly by supplying the pro bono resources to the opposition, this is a bit more serious than the Conservation Law Foundation's "adorable" Arborway suit). And it means drawing up some sort of half-assed new Transit Commitment to head off the legal challenges...even if it's more bullshit like suburban parking garages that go 2x over-budget.


Backing out means they're still out $½B or more, depending on how hasty/messy a retreat they pull (hint: if we're even having this discussion semi-seriously, bet on it being cromulently hasty and messy). With no mobility improvements, worsening congestion that's going to drain the road budget one pinprick at a time forever (and ding City of Somerville's municipal budget extra-hard), and a real estate mini-bubble that's going to burst in Somerville and Medford from all the pending property value increases that won't be coming. So the real under-the-hood costs are going to sting much worse than the retreat checks the state has to dole out.


This isn't Arborway or the other Transit Commitments. The state had zero fear of breaking those or watering those down to spit. They are scared shitless of backing out of GLX because the write-off costs--direct and indirect--are political career-enders for the people who have to make those decisions. Baker isn't winning reelection if he has to write off Middlesex County as a probable lost cause in 2018; he won the 2014 squeaker because he overperformed in the bluer swath of Middlesex closest to Boston and held to Coakley to her narrowest margin of victory in any of the counties she took. Cambridge, Somerville and Medford are never going to vote GOP...but a record high-turnout hate-vote in those precincts in '18 will sink him, no question.

When it poses a mortal threat to the top of the power structure on their own turf, the pols will act head-on instead of ducking. This is one of the exceedingly rare transit cases where that level of mortal threat is in-play...and it's achieved threat-level because the project has crossed way too far beyond the point of no return to reverse course.
 
Okay....so do we know/predict when Lechmere will close and when the relocated station will open?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top