Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[citylover94]

It can be cheaper without changing design though that is the point that a few of us have been trying to make and everyone else seems to be missing. The costs were intentionally being overestimated or at least it sounds like they were by the contractor so the simplest fix and price cut is to do what F-Line has suggested and rebid with a process that will not let the contractor double the cost of everything.

I can tell you right now redesign is not cheap. For a similar example from a different industry but the same concept my graphic design professor once was working on a logo it got approval by one person and then someone else at the company changed there minds and wanted a different version. In the end it cost the company double what it would of because of the extra time and work needed to redesign the logo. That is essentially what is being suggested here, and while redesigning stations might make them cheaper to build having stuff redesigned is expensive so overall it will not save money. Pretty simple concept as far as I can tell you have to pay the designers and engineers and that is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- I don't know -- is Warf your new Handle?

You keep flogging the same dead old horse -- Face it - -the GLX that comes out of the process currently underway will be different and it has to be cheaper or its DOA

Re-bid with less corruption. Yes...you're absolutely right.


Now make yourself useful and spin us a few more moldy yarns about Billy Bulger. We're gettin' bored here.

 

[tangent]

That is essentially what is being suggested here, and while redesigning stations might make them cheaper to build having stuff redesigned is expensive so overall it will not save money. Pretty simple concept as far as I can tell you have to pay the designers and engineers and that is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

They appear to be moving forward with a redesign, I think the point that they could be wasting more money is well taken. Yes they certainly could be. Unless... they drop major design elements which is what they are after. That seems to be a good worthwhile discussion to have here.

Par at least several of the stations down to something more like (or almost exactly like) the new Boston College Station design estimated at $20 million or less (originally estimated at $5 million it seems?): http://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Z92PS44-BC-15-percent-plans.pdf

I think something similar to that BC station design would be especially appropriate for Ball Square, Lowell St and College Station if Tufts doesn't want to fund anything more.

Lechmere, and Union Square stations are more compelling in terms of features and expected redevelopment around the stations justifying some increased cost for a station over a basic design. So, I think that is more a matter of a renegotiation of cost sharing and rebidding the stations as-is.

Washington Street and Gilman Square are a bit more complicated both in street stop interface and grade changes and the potential existing and future needs. I think the case for major redesign is a bit less strong, but I'd be interested to see what they come up with.

So, from the $3 billion number that brings us back down quite a bit actually. If you consider $800 billion in upper-end overinflated estimated station costs as-is, then you are probably more in the ballpark of $30 million per station for a savings of $500 million which includes a combination of cost savings from redesign and renegotiation with Tufts over College Station and with Somerville over Union Square primarily. That might save $100 million or so from the initial MBTA estimate.

There are a couple other changes being discussed. More than advocating for these changes, I'd say this is about what we should expect moving forward to look like if the project doesn't get put on another indefinite hold this Summer. That still leaves the project a few hundred million over budget and very expensive, but the high ball $3B estimate gives political cover to call this a win at $2.3 to $2.4 Billion and it mostly gets built out like everyone wanted.

 

[JumboBuc]

Par at least several of the stations down to something more like (or almost exactly like) the new Boston College Station design estimated at $20 million or less (originally estimated at $5 million it seems?): http://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Z92PS44-BC-15-percent-plans.pdf

I think something similar to that BC station design would be especially appropriate for Ball Square, Lowell St and College Station if Tufts doesn't want to fund anything more.

I'm sorry, I must be missing something in those BC drawings. Where is the active heavy rail line that directly abuts the tracks and the platform? And where is the two-story deep trench that the station sits in? And where are the blocks and blocks of densely packed multi-family houses that surround the station and make up its sizeable ridership base?

Oh, right, BC doesn't have any of those things.

Nobody doubts that the GLX stations would be much cheaper to build if they were located on at-grade, stand-alone, 110k+ sf lots abutting a golf course in Newton.

 

[CSTH]

To be cynical - isn't redesign inevitable, if even just for CYA purposes?

Which would you rather have to sell to the public: "We're saving $500m because we were incompetent and getting fleeced previously, but now we're not anymore?" Or "We're saving $490m because we made the stations worse and uglier?"

 

[kjdonovan]

I think I'll be taking a break from checking this thread until April when the new report is out. Not a lot of value-add coming out of this conversation of late.

 

[Transitmass]

CSTH- you have a good point: Self-effacement is not a strong sort of bureaucracies anywhere. It might be a foregone conclusion for that reason; not because it makes sense at all.

Also to Tangent, I would caution that statements on the part of the T that say they are "re-designing stations" are just that. We don't know if they actually are or what the scope of that redesign is. Of course they are going to say they are whether they are or they aren't. Also, even if such statements are technically true it could be very banal and ineffectual redesign and just be being done to for the purposes of PR. That is not beyond the realm of belief. Therefore, I would want to see more evidence that they are actually redesigning stations because, as we have gone over here on this board, it just doesn't make sense economically to do so for myriad reasons.

From what I'm hearing on the grapevine, this project should probably be around $2.3-$2.5 without a single design change. The $3bn is a shock and awe number. Remember, the Commonwealth has extrapolated what future contracts might come in at without having bid those contracts. $3bn is kind of made up. Most people who've rolled up their sleeves are certain that almost all of the inflation is on absolute contractor and overbidding. The whole process was just so poorly implemented and the powers at be know it.

One thing our policymakers and powers at be are being disingenuous about is that the estimates came about during a deep recession when everything was cheaper. Go to the Development pages on this forum and just take a look around. Is it really unreasonable to understand that contractors are going to demand more for construction in this environment? I think not. So we all have to come to terms with the fact that this project will cost more simply because we waited too long. That's on us as a political body, and the region shouldn't suffer because we can't get our act together.

So let's say this gets re-bid and it comes to $2.4bn. I bet the FTA will come up a little with their support (especially in light of the recently passed transport bill) because there are basically no other projects nationwide that offer this much mobility for that same headline number- that's how meritorious this project is. So let's say the FTA throws in another $200mm. That means the Commonwealth has to come up with another $200mm on their end to build the project as designed. Who on the board doesn't think that is worthwhile?

I would bet the people who think that this project isn't worth it at that slightly increased price probably already feel that this project isn't worth it at any price.

 

[tangent]

I'm sorry, I must be missing something in those BC drawings. Where is the active heavy rail line that directly abuts the tracks and the platform? And where is the two-story deep trench that the station sits in? And where are the blocks and blocks of densely packed multi-family houses that surround the station and make up its sizeable ridership base?

Oh, right, BC doesn't have any of those things.

Nobody doubts that the GLX stations would be much cheaper to build if they were located on at-grade, stand-alone, 110k+ sf lots abutting a golf course in Newton.

The three stations I mentioned are at grade and only below grade because they chose to build them at the overpass instead of immediately adjacent at grade. And the population density of that area of Brighton and Boston College are very similar to Somerville and Tufts.

 

[tangent]

I think I'll be taking a break from checking this thread until April when the new report is out. Not a lot of value-add coming out of this conversation of late.

You are right. But I think we have established how this conversation will go in April. Which is not well.

 

[JumboBuc]

The three stations I mentioned are at grade and only below grade because they chose to build them at the overpass instead of immediately adjacent at grade. And the population density of that area of Brighton and Boston College are very similar to Somerville and Tufts.

Even just a cursory glance at Google Maps shows none of this to be the case.

And are you proposing moving the stations? That would require redoing just about all of the design and planning. I can only imagine the added costs of that...

 

[bigeman312]

To be cynical - isn't redesign inevitable, if even just for CYA purposes?

Which would you rather have to sell to the public: "We're saving $500m because we were incompetent and getting fleeced previously, but now we're not anymore?" Or "We're saving $490m because we made the stations worse and uglier?"

I'll bring an optimistic twist, then:

"We're saving $500m because they (the previous administration: Patrick, Scott, etc.) were incompetent and getting fleeced, but now we (Patrick, Pollack, FCB, etc.) are not anymore."

 

[cden4]

What is it exactly about the new stations that is "gold-plated?" I honestly want to know.

 

[boston85]

The three stations I mentioned are at grade and only below grade because they chose to build them at the overpass instead of immediately adjacent at grade. And the population density of that area of Brighton and Boston College are very similar to Somerville and Tufts.

Not very accurate to say that Brighton/Somerville and BC/Tufts are similar in population density. Some parts and aspects are comparable to a degree, but from the BC stop perspective they are very different. GLX stops as far as ridership will be more like the Harvard stop on the B. That stop is a nightmare with loading/offloading and people crossing the tracks to catch the T. Also, not many people around the BC stop take the B line(especially inbound). I lived in the area when going to BC for grad school. For local travel, the BC shuttle was much faster for getting between campus and Chestnut hill Ave and if you wanted to go into the city you would walk the extra 5 to 10 minutes to Cleveland Circle/Reservoir because the B line took 45 minutes just to get to Kenmore during the evenings.


Look at what is around the BC stop within a half mile. It is surrounded by cemetery, reservoir, golf course, a bunch open land with connection to the church, the BC campus, and very few residential homes (maybe 10% of the land mass within walking distant). Further they are single family homes, not triples and the lots in that area of Brighton are larger. A lot of the homes around BC are used by students that do not commute into the city every weekday. Almost all stations on the GLX are surrounded by high density residential neighborhoods and will make ideal place for young working professionals who will commute into the city. College Ave stop is probably the closest to BC, but has much more residential homes within walking distant. There is not a lot of open land minus the Tufts campus. No reservoir, cemetery, church, nor golf course. Plus there are more young professionals in that area. Look at the foot traffic clogging up Powderhouse Circle coming from Davis. Those commuters will be diverted to College Ave/Ball Square.

The only time there would be more than a handful of people getting on at BC was the AM rush, but everyone was able to get a seat and since it was the first stop the operator would open the door a few minutes before departure.

The other stations on the GLX are surrounded by high density residential neighborhoods and will make ideal place for young working professionals that commute into the city. For a comparison, look at all the people that walk up and down Broadway to and from Sullivan (only the foot traffic not bus transfers, so just people that live in East Somerville and walk to the station). It is probably 10 to 20 people every train during the commute hours. I run past Sullivan square on my runs to the esplanade and I am always in the street because a group of people are taking up the sidewalk on Broadway coming from Sullivan. Further, Sullivan is 3/4 surrounded by barren waste land that is Sullivan square. Arguably there will be more people walking to the GLX stops than Sullivan. If the GLX stops are front door load/exit they will get crushed during the commute and people heading into the city at night.

 

[Arlington]

What is it exactly about the new stations that is "gold-plated?" I honestly want to know.

You'll get 4 possible answers.
View 1) is that we've spent too much time on architects and revisions and configurations that appease abutters.

View 2) Is that having stations at all is the gold plating. Anything more than a level slab and a bus shelter (D-Branch) is too much (that's what I'd say. a big part of being "light rail" is having minimal stations )

View 3) Is that even assuming fare gates, stations could be more minimal...ramps instead of bridgework and elevators. Laid out like Indigo (ramps for grade changes) or Lechmere (fare gates in a minimal "gateway")

View 4) Is that even assuming bridgework and elevators, they are too big/elaborate with too high a level of finish.

I think most here agree on #1 and bet that #4 is wrong (or not much can be wrung from them...granite is cost effective, for example, when life cycle costs are considered)

Most of the discussion here centers on how much #2 and #3 can be as a source of waste/cost versus plain old non-physical stuff like:
- overcharging by noncompetitive bidding,
- diversion of real estate appreciation to pay off neighbors instead of funding stuff
- taking too long
- too much future-proofing (yard size) vs current needs

 

[citylover94]

But this "light" rail line is light rail in name only the passenger volumes as mentioned about a million times by me and others are heavy rail volumes which is why they are essentially building heavy rail stations. Imagine if the blue line had light rail stations and you get a good picture of what this extension would operate like without level boarding and grade separated entry to the platform(s).

As far as future proofing doesn't everyone complain when in the past the T hasn't planned ahead well and a design decision hurts their ability to run effective service today. Based on that why are they now being slammed for trying to plan that. I don't get it. If I worked for the T and had somebody complain about future proofing I would have the urge to throw up my hands and say fine you do it. You can't have it both ways either plan for the future or even "over" plan and guarantee good service or plan for today and risk having poor or substandard service in the future.

 

[tangent]

Even just a cursory glance at Google Maps shows none of this to be the case.

And are you proposing moving the stations? That would require redoing just about all of the design and planning. I can only imagine the added costs of that...

Take Ball Square:

You don't need to move it. Just eliminate the station and make it a T stop exactly where they are proposing. Lose most of the structure. Lose the ramp from the overpass. And make the primary access at ground level at the corner of Boston and Broadway.

Or if you want to have a station then incorporate it into a transportation oriented development on that parcel instead of having a standalone station.

 

[CSTH]

Or if you want to have a station then incorporate it into a transportation oriented development on that parcel instead of having a standalone station.

This. I have a hunch that if Tufts, Somerville or anyone else is going to put any new equity into this then they're going to ask for some new value in return, and land / air rights have to be near the top of the list.

 

[Texasian]

You don't need to move it. Just eliminate the station and make it a T stop exactly where they are proposing. Lose most of the structure. Lose the ramp from the overpass. And make the primary access at ground level at the corner of Boston and Broadway.

You'd still need to get up and over the inbound tracks as the MBTA will not build new stations with track crossings. The bridge is the preferred drop-off location for the ride as it removes an elevator from on/off-boarding a handicapped passenger.

As for shifting the station closer to the bridge, NSTAR has a massive transmission line that crosses the tracks under the pedestrian bridge and part of the courtyard.

Lastly, they've provisioned for TOD, but I think the combination of the NSTAR transmission line right under Broadway and the traction substation limit what they can do with the Ball Square site.

 

[tangent]

You'd still need to get up and over the inbound tracks as the MBTA will not build new stations with track crossings.

That clearly isn't true. Or at least that is why you call it a "stop".

 

[JumboBuc]

Take Ball Square:

You don't need to move it. Just eliminate the station and make it a T stop exactly where they are proposing. Lose most of the structure. Lose the ramp from the overpass. And make the primary access at ground level at the corner of Boston and Broadway.

Or if you want to have a station then incorporate it into a transportation oriented development on that parcel instead of having a standalone station.

You'd still need the substation. And you'd still need an ADA compliant way to reach the outbound platform (walking across the tracks isn't going to cut it, for all the reasons discussed to death on this thread). Given that an elevator structure is required, connecting it to Broadway is absolutely worth it. Taking these constraints and the added costs of redesign into account, there really isn't significant money to be saved by majorly cutting back to an inferior product at this point.

If a TOD partner could be found, that would be fantastic. The space in front of and next to the substation is already designated for future TOD, but getting an air-rights tenant to pay for redesign up front would absolutely be a win.