Fairmount Line Upgrade

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I don't think that changes it. The Spanish have always been much more efficient at tunnel construction. Highway tunnel too. They built the Madrid "Big Dig" for about EU 4 billion and about 7 years from concept to ribbon-cutting.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Matthew said:
Neither push-pulls nor DMUs will run in the N/S link for two reasons, (a) because the Link will probably not be constructed for decades and (b) when it does, no diesel engines will be permitted to operate inside the tunnels.



I don't know why this keeps popping up but $1 billion/km is NOT cheap, and Crossrail is probably the most overpriced project outside of ... NYC. Of course there are some reasonable excuses due to local conditions but still... Barcelona is no slouch in the "historic city" department and yet the Spanish are managing to construct the brand new 100% automated mostly underground 47.8 km-long L9/10 subway for about $170 million / km.

The real question is why United States construction costs are so wacky and out of proportion to other first-world developed nations. And the British ought to be asking the same question of their own projects.
Click to expand...

I am not saying $1 bn/km is cheap -- but it is cheaper than any project quote you would ever see in Boston. We clock in at more than $2 bn/km, and then expect overruns.

And London is inherently a more expensive city to do anything in than Boston.

I will point out (as I have done before) that London is using TBM for Crossrail (I believe there are six or eight machines total), and their geology is pretty similar to Boston. But we would never consider using TBM here. The engineering journals talk about how easy it is to bore through the "London clay", and how they are using geo-grouting to stabilize the glacial till -- all things that board members here say cannot be done. People really need to get out and see the kind of engineering that goes on in the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Well, if you're talking about the old NSRL study then I don't really expect the actual cost to be $2bn/km. First of all, that includes Central Station: tunnel boring isn't the main expense, it's station caverns that really blow up costs. And secondly, that study is widely believed to be intentionally sandbagged in order to sink the project and justify its removal from the state list. A more honest study would come up with a slightly more reasonable figure, probably something in line with London's costs. That's still overpriced, but overpriced in line with USA and British costs, a problem that still needs to be resolved.

I don't know why you say we would never consider TBMs here. When it comes down to it, where appropriate, they will be used. They're just not a complete, 'magic' solution to building subways.

Actually, I don't even think the Central Artery-segment of the tunnel itself is the most difficult part of the NSRL. Much of the hard work has already been done -- moving the utilities and threading a path through the maze of underground stuff. It'll be harder (for various reasons) to do these: creating the new underground platforms, building the portals and electrifying the commuter rail network.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Matthew said:
Well, if you're talking about the old NSRL study then I don't really expect the actual cost to be $2bn/km. First of all, that includes Central Station: tunnel boring isn't the main expense, it's station caverns that really blow up costs. And secondly, that study is widely believed to be intentionally sandbagged in order to sink the project and justify its removal from the state list. A more honest study would come up with a slightly more reasonable figure, probably something in line with London's costs. That's still overpriced, but overpriced in line with USA and British costs, a problem that still needs to be resolved.

I don't know why you say we would never consider TBMs here. When it comes down to it, where appropriate, they will be used. They're just not a complete, 'magic' solution to building subways.

Actually, I don't even think the Central Artery-segment of the tunnel itself is the most difficult part of the NSRL. Much of the hard work has already been done -- moving the utilities and threading a path through the maze of underground stuff. It'll be harder (for various reasons) to do these: creating the new underground platforms, building the portals and electrifying the commuter rail network.
Click to expand...

Matthew, fair enough, although I have heard numbers thrown around for rail tunneling here that seem in line with $2 bn/km without stations. (I could be wrong).

I think a TMB approach could help with some of the challenges of Green Line connection to Silver Line Waterfront -- go deep under the obstructions in the Essex/Boylston street alignment -- do not just cut and cover through all the issues. Again, I could be wrong, but I have not seen any indication that TMB was even evaluated for SL Phase 3, for example (which I think was the wrong routing, but that is a different issue).
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

A TBM might very well be used to cut the tunnel, but that doesn't eliminate the whole host of problems regarding grade, utilities, building foundations, and tunnel connections. I don't know the Essex Street tunnel plan details off the top of my head. But I imagine it's not just as simple as "going deep." It has to connect at either end to existing infrastructure: including something built under Boylston station, which is a well-detailed nightmare.

I do know that Boston engineers do not shy away from TBMs. For example, the most recent Red/Blue Connection plan involved using a TBM below Cambridge Street.

TBMs are just drills. Really big, really cool drills, no doubt. Great labor-saving device: it replaces the need to have gangs of workers hacking away with pick-axes and/or dynamite. And they can install tunnel walls in a slick fashion, where terrain permits. But it doesn't avoid utilities, doesn't help with soft landfill, and doesn't help avoid impacts to surrounding buildings on its own.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Matthew said:
TBMs are just drills. Really big, really cool drills, no doubt. Great labor-saving device: it replaces the need to have gangs of workers hacking away with pick-axes and/or dynamite. And they can install tunnel walls in a slick fashion, where terrain permits. But it doesn't avoid utilities, doesn't help with soft landfill, and doesn't help avoid impacts to surrounding buildings on its own.
Click to expand...

OK, but I will take exception to two points here.

1) Going deep does in fact avoid a lot of utilities. It is one of the biggest reasons to go deep -- go under the uncertain infrastructure (for most of the route). Yes, you still have to interface with the surface, and the stations (like the Boylston nightmare), but you miss a lot of utilities along the way.

2) Using a TBM, along with advanced soil stabilization techniques like geo-grouting, is way less intrusive to old foundations than cut and cover, pick axes and dynamite. This is why it is being used in an old city like London. Particularly for most of the distance along the route when you are deep under.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

^ For a lot of the extensions we're discussing (i.e. Red/Blue, Green to Transitway) there's not enough space to both go deep and rise to meet the interfaces. It would have to be a shallow TBM bore... or cut/cover.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ For a lot of the extensions we're discussing (i.e. Red/Blue, Green to Transitway) there's not enough space to both go deep and rise to meet the interfaces. It would have to be a shallow TBM bore... or cut/cover.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, negates many of the benefits of TBM.

I do think that the Essex alignment for Silver Line/Green Line connection works for at least partially deep TBM, if you only connect to the westbound side of GL on Boylston Street between Charles Street South and Arlington Street. Go deep under Boylston Station. Only punch a few holes up to the Station/Surface.

Also a terrain map would be useful here. Going west out Essex from the transitway, Essex Street rises up to Washington/Orange Line, flat to Boylston Station, then Boylston is downhill again out to Arlington. The terrain works in your favor to minimize the slope needed to go under the Orange Line at Chinatown and Green Line at Boylston Station.

I'd give up on trying to connect to the North Bound GL leg toward Park. That is a transfer.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Future site of Blue Hill Ave station:
IMG_20141130_141248.jpg


and surroundings:
IMG_20141130_141134.jpg
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Recently replaced River St bridge over Fairmount line:

IMG_20141130_142545.jpg


IMG_20141130_142623.jpg
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Will the Blue Hill/Cummins station have access to both Blue Hill Ave and Cummins Hwy?
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Yes, it will be an island platform with ramps to both streets.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

FYI
Fairmount Community Workshop
Four Corners / Geneva Avenue Station Area
Description: As part of the Fairmount Indigo Planning Initiative, Mayor Martin J. Walsh invites you to:
The Four Corners / Geneva Avenue Station Area Community Workshop

Please join us at a community workshop to share your recommendations for economic development, jobs, transit and housing centered around the MBTA Four Corners/Geneva Avenue Station. We need your voice to help develop a vision for the future. [more]

Time: 01/13/2015 6:00:00 PM - 8:00:00 PM
Location: Holland Community Center. 85 Olney Street, Dorchester (access from Geneva Avenue)
Click to expand...
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Fairmount from the Truman Parkway.

IMG_20141214_161628.jpg


IMG_20141214_161530.jpg
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

On Fairmount Line, opportunity knocks

Notwithstanding recent improvements to the Fairmount Line, ridership is light. What is needed – both to boost ridership and to leverage the corridor to spur economic growth – is a new strategy to deal with the land surrounding this railroad line which has been part of our city for 150 years. Not unlike the transit-oriented strategy recently announced by Mayor Marty Walsh for Dorchester Avenue and Washington Street in Jamaica Plain, we need new rules for a new era. Existing laws do not result in the production of housing at all price points. Here are a few examples:

Why not boost the tax on vacant land so as to discourage those who might want to sit on undeveloped parcels for a long period of time? Public policy encourages farm land to be preserved. It encourages recreational land to be preserved. Why should public policy not discourage unused parcels in the core of the city within walking distance of public transportation which can connect residents and jobs in less than 30 minutes?
Click to expand...

http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/fairmount-line-opportunity-knocks/
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

In the MBTA Customer Service thread FK4 brought up the idea about better branding. The Fairmont Line is POSTER CHILD #1 for rebranding. I remember a story about when the T was having a public meeting about expanding the line and a resident asked why it wasn't on the system map. The T spokesperson was puzzled because obviously it was. It was a commuter rail line, not a subway line. All they had to do was draw it like a subway line and people would realize it's there.

If the T can try to convince us the Silver Line is a subway line when we all know it's a bus by drawing it on the subway map then they can do the same for the Fairmont/Indigo Line. Also the T needs to stop thinking about the Fairmont Line as just being a commuter rail line. They need to embrace the hybrid nature of what they are trying to accomplish.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

^+1

I totally agree with that and it even makes more sense in many ways to include it since it is at least fully grade separated rail. Even if it doesn't run as frequently as it should.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

That said, it would be extremely misleading to include the Fairmount Line on the subway map as a subway line until it actually has subway-like service. The key bus routes have sub-15 minute headways all day, every day. The subway lines have sub-15 minute headways all day, every day. The Silver Line has sub-15 minute headways all day every day. The Fairmount Line has hour headways all day under normal service. Until it's at 20-minute headways, it's still a commuter rail line.

* There are a few exceptions. Sunday service on the Red Line branches is 16 minutes, late night SL4 is 20 minutes (but shares the trunk with 15-minute SL5), and early/late weekend Mattapan service is 26 minutes.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

That's a fair point. But again this is on the T to increase those headways. I'm glad they are seriously talking about DMUs finally. Or Patrick was, not so sure about this new guy.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

vanshnookenraggen said:
That's a fair point. But again this is on the T to increase those headways. I'm glad they are seriously talking about DMUs finally. Or Patrick was, not so sure about this new guy.
Click to expand...

I don't see why he would stop. DMUs are an easy way to defer something like BLX to Lynn. It's a comparatively cheap, middle way between rapid transit and traditional commuter rail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top