MBTA "Transformation" (Green Line, Red Line, & Orange Line Transformation Projects)

cubbe8 said:
View attachment 71655
The E branch accessibility project is going to cost a whopping 282 million dollars…
Click to expand...

~.7 miles of converting an existing street running trolley to a protected ROW in the existing street is nuts at $280m. Those better be some epically impressive stations. So much for hoping for a cheap +1 to Hyde Square. Can't even imagine then what the +1 to Rozzie Square on the Orange will cost.
 
bakgwailo said:
~.7 miles of converting an existing street running trolley to a protected ROW in the existing street is nuts at $280m. Those better be some epically impressive stations. So much for hoping for a cheap +1 to Hyde Square. Can't even imagine then what the +1 to Rozzie Square on the Orange will cost.
Click to expand...
I would be willing to bet that a big driver for the cost is trying to keep the line and street mostly open during the construction. It is a tight, busy transit and traffic corridor, not a greenfield site.

If we were willing to take the transportation hit of closing the corridor for six months, it would be a much cheaper project. That is clearly not politically (or practically) possible.
 
RandomWalk said:
Eng has built up a bunch of credibility with g the handling of partial shutdowns and surges. This would be a place to spend some of it.
Click to expand...
People are willing to swallow a shutdown of a rail line to expedite a faster project, but I don't think people are going to accept the idea of shutting down an entire artery. Huntington Ave. is a major route for car based trips, that's the thing that can't be closed, unfortunately.
 
cubbe8 said:
View attachment 71655
The E branch accessibility project is going to cost a whopping 282 million dollars…
Click to expand...
Maybe this is just cope, but there is no way that's correct. In the very next line item, the cost to upgrade (at least) 10 B Branch stations to fully support 2-car Type 10 vehicles is "only" $200 million. That also includes track and power improvements for ~4 miles, compared to less than 1 for the E Branch. Maybe there is additional E branch improvement funding opaquely included under the $280 million, but it can't just be for the portion that is currently street-running.

As for lane/street closures, I fully expect everything in the future E Branch protected ROW to be shut down to car traffic once construction begins. Shutting down S. Huntington for short spurts (1-2 weeks at a time) would be reasonable and weekends/overnights for Huntington would probably also be acceptable. What would probably help the most is temporarily removing parking on one or both sides of the street. Selling these more disruptive methods also tends to be a lot easier if you are honest with the public on what the plan is and what the "less" disruptive plan is. Most people prefer "Huntington is awful and should be avoided at all costs" for 1 year over "Huntington is slightly less awful" for 3 years.
 
BeansTheCat said:
Maybe this is just cope, but there is no way that's correct. In the very next line item, the cost to upgrade (at least) 10 B Branch stations to fully support 2-car Type 10 vehicles is "only" $200 million. That also includes track and power improvements for ~4 miles, compared to less than 1 for the E Branch. Maybe there is additional E branch improvement funding opaquely included under the $280 million, but it can't just be for the portion that is currently street-running.
Click to expand...
It might not cost $200 mil for that upgrade but this is how the T has historically handled their capital improvement projects.

I don’t feel that it’s cope. There’s just probably much more behind the scenes that Eng has to work with. Cost of vehicle maintenance has skyrocketed in the past two decades. So Eng might be playing with the hand he’s been dealt.
 
kingofsheeba said:
It might not cost $200 mil for that upgrade but this is how the T has historically handled their capital improvement projects.
Click to expand...
I also doubt it will cost $200 million (it absolutely shouldn't), but it was more for a point of comparison. The E Branch improvements should be about 25% of the cost of the B branch ones, and even if there's other funding tucked in, that price tag is completely ridiculous.
 
BeansTheCat said:
Maybe this is just cope, but there is no way that's correct. In the very next line item, the cost to upgrade (at least) 10 B Branch stations to fully support 2-car Type 10 vehicles is "only" $200 million. That also includes track and power improvements for ~4 miles, compared to less than 1 for the E Branch. Maybe there is additional E branch improvement funding opaquely included under the $280 million, but it can't just be for the portion that is currently street-running.
Click to expand...
BeansTheCat said:
I also doubt it will cost $200 million (it absolutely shouldn't), but it was more for a point of comparison. The E Branch improvements should be about 25% of the cost of the B branch ones, and even if there's other funding tucked in, that price tag is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Seems hard to fully assess without having any clue what they're doing for this price. Which is itself a problem....

With the E project, I assume you're talking full street reconstruction including 6(?) signalized intersections, installation of a signal system for the trains, and probably relatively comfortable-sized platforms for the transitway concept?

I'm also unaware of what kind of power upgrades we're talking - I feel like I've read talk that this end is partially fed by cables running up the whole former path of the line to Arborway. Are those in need of full replacement/expansion? That seems like it could cost a few bucks too.

I'll also point out that from the read of it, it may be including projects along the whole E Line, not just the street-running portion.

------

On the B Branch side: it seems like the cost is actually ~$311m - there's a separate project "P1009A - B Branch Short Term Accessibility Improvements – FTA Compliance Actions (P1009a)" that are $111m, in addition to the "P0924 B Branch Accessibility & Infrastructure Improvements" that are $200m.

With the B it looks like we're just slapping down some slightly wider/better concrete for the intermediate stations and not doing much else beyond cosmetics outside of the Lake St yard/terminal reconfiguration. (based on the Chiswick St concept pic).
 
I just hate that we have admitted defeat on transit costs. I think the report on GLX from Alon Levy's group was really well-reasoned and it has generated ~zero talk at the MBTA about how to contain these contracts and do more stuff in-house and cheaper. The only people who want to talk about saving money are the freaks at the Pioneer institute and they obviously don't actually have good intentions. If we could complete these projects at European costs then we could have 4x as many.
 
millerm277 said:
Seems hard to fully assess without having any clue what they're doing for this price. Which is itself a problem....

With the E project, I assume you're talking full street reconstruction including 6(?) signalized intersections, installation of a signal system for the trains, and probably relatively comfortable-sized platforms for the transitway concept?

I'm also unaware of what kind of power upgrades we're talking - I feel like I've read talk that this end is partially fed by cables running up the whole former path of the line to Arborway. Are those in need of full replacement/expansion? That seems like it could cost a few bucks too.

I'll also point out that from the read of it, it may be including projects along the whole E Line, not just the street-running portion.

------

On the B Branch side: it seems like the cost is actually ~$311m - there's a separate project "P1009A - B Branch Short Term Accessibility Improvements – FTA Compliance Actions (P1009a)" that are $111m, in addition to the "P0924 B Branch Accessibility & Infrastructure Improvements" that are $200m.

With the B it looks like we're just slapping down some slightly wider/better concrete for the intermediate stations and not doing much else beyond cosmetics outside of the Lake St yard/terminal reconfiguration. (based on the Chiswick St concept pic).
Click to expand...
The $111m one are the near term improvements and will start construction next year, the other one is long term and will be done in the 2030s.
 
cubbe8 said:
The $111m one are the near term improvements and will start construction next year, the other one is long term and will be done in the 2030s.
Click to expand...
Right, I'm just pointing out that upgrading the B Branch, with whatever infrastructure upgrades are required to achieve both accessibility and supporting 2-car Type 10 trains, will require both of those projects + their costs. So our point of comparison is more like $311m for the whole branch, not just the $200m project by itself.
 
millerm277 said:
Seems hard to fully assess without having any clue what they're doing for this price. Which is itself a problem....

With the E project, I assume you're talking full street reconstruction including 6(?) signalized intersections, installation of a signal system for the trains, and probably relatively comfortable-sized platforms for the transitway concept?

I'm also unaware of what kind of power upgrades we're talking - I feel like I've read talk that this end is partially fed by cables running up the whole former path of the line to Arborway. Are those in need of full replacement/expansion? That seems like it could cost a few bucks too.

I'll also point out that from the read of it, it may be including projects along the whole E Line, not just the street-running portion.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that one of the main problems here is that we have no idea what is being scoped into these projects.

But there is no world in which $280 million is a reasonable price tag for 1 mile of street-running light rail, regardless of scope. Feel free to correct me, but $50 million should be more than enough for a full-depth road reconstruction of the relevant parts of Huntington & South Huntington. While this is almost certainly lumping in work on other parts of the E branch, only power work should be a major driver. This is because:
  • No underground stations are listed in the CIP item for this. Only Mission Park, Riverway, and Heath St
  • Signal work should be largely funded and completed as part of GLTPS
  • Track work should be minimal and largely covered by state of good repair work
Unless the power work needed for Type 10s will genuinely cost $200 million, which I doubt, there is either serious cost disease or hiding the full scope of work here.
 
millerm277 said:
On the B Branch side: it seems like the cost is actually ~$311m - there's a separate project "P1009A - B Branch Short Term Accessibility Improvements – FTA Compliance Actions (P1009a)" that are $111m, in addition to the "P0924 B Branch Accessibility & Infrastructure Improvements" that are $200m.

With the B it looks like we're just slapping down some slightly wider/better concrete for the intermediate stations and not doing much else beyond cosmetics outside of the Lake St yard/terminal reconfiguration. (based on the Chiswick St concept pic).
Click to expand...
I expect significant roadway changes as part of the the second "P0924" project. The city and BTD have been floating new designs for Comm Ave between Packard's Corner and BC for at least a year now and indicated that they plan on doing that roadway work concurrently with B Branch upgrades. This has included track realignment, removal/alteration of carriage lanes, changing intersection configurations, etc. I can't say how much of that funding is expected from the city vs. MBTA, but the expectation is that there will be a "new" Comm Ave at some point in the next 5-10 years
 
3459.jpg

See above for scope of work, as described in the briefing for the designers being contracted.
1) didn't they recently (2021?) complete a full depth reconstruction of the E branch's street running trackwork? That probably didn't touch the power infrastructure, but it'd be annoying if they're gonna rip out basically new track to accommodate this project.
2) that new TPSS must be accounting for a significant chunk of the project budget, since the T doesn't own a site for it - there's as yet no real estate procurement open - but it would need to be tied into either the MBTAs own feeders or the eversouce substation.
3) I also have to imagine a significant portion of the complexity may actually be coming from the desire to have a shared bus and Green transitway, and the fact that they're likely extending the signaling system.
 
cubbe8 said:
Boards and slides from yesterday’s pre construction meeting for C branch


Click to expand...
Kind of disappointing that most staggered stops have been replaced by aligned stops.

Also for a 'Consolidated Fairbanks Ave/Brandon Hall' that sure looks a lot like the exact spot Brandon Hall currently is...
 
The nearside/farside difference between the first round of designs in 2024 and the final designs is Dean EB, St Paul WB, and Hawes EB. Platforms at Englewood EB, Dean WB, and St Paul EB are getting moved farside; others were already farside. (I guess Tappan WB is technically nearside, but that was never proposed for relocation because of the intersection geometry.) A few nearside platforms remaining is not going to affect TSP effectiveness that badly.

Brandon Hall has gone through several iterations. The original 2024 design called for staggered platforms with quite a bit of separation. Bad for everyone - lots of extra walking, and some people would have to cross the tracks twice. By the end of the year, platforms were to be at Brandon Hall, but with only a single ramp connection to the north side (midblock) and a single connection to the south side (at current Brandon Hall location). It's unclear whether the two existing stairs would have been retained. The final design have ramps+stairs+crosswalks at the existing locations, which have traffic signals on the west and flashing beacons on the east. Given the constraints, I think it's the right design.
 
The EGE said:
The nearside/farside difference between the first round of designs in 2024 and the final designs is Dean EB, St Paul WB, and Hawes EB. Platforms at Englewood EB, Dean WB, and St Paul EB are getting moved farside; others were already farside. (I guess Tappan WB is technically nearside, but that was never proposed for relocation because of the intersection geometry.) A few nearside platforms remaining is not going to affect TSP effectiveness that badly.

Brandon Hall has gone through several iterations. The original 2024 design called for staggered platforms with quite a bit of separation. Bad for everyone - lots of extra walking, and some people would have to cross the tracks twice. By the end of the year, platforms were to be at Brandon Hall, but with only a single ramp connection to the north side (midblock) and a single connection to the south side (at current Brandon Hall location). It's unclear whether the two existing stairs would have been retained. The final design have ramps+stairs+crosswalks at the existing locations, which have traffic signals on the west and flashing beacons on the east. Given the constraints, I think it's the right design.
Click to expand...
The reason for most of the changes is to save trees, as residents were complaining about the removal of mature trees and the impact on the historic corridor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top