^Note the track alignment simplification in that graphic too
I love this. But it seems too good to be true. What's the downside?
Value Engineering and Cost Reduction Opportunities
No. | Description | % of Project Construction Cost
1 New Lowell Line Cross-Section ~ 40%
2 Scaled Down Stations ~ 23%
3 Union Square Branch Alternatives ~ 15%
4 Viaduct Redesign ~ 12%
5 Downsized Vehicle Maintenance Facility ~ 11%
6 Schedule and Productivity Improvements ~ 8%
Range of Potential Savings: 10% to 40% of Construction Cost
Lowell Line Cross-Section Opportunities
Reduce proposed cross-sectional width
Eliminate utility corridor
• Relocate AC power to catenary
• Relocate Community Path to combination of north side and
outside of the active rail corridor
Apply fewer and more economical retaining walls
• Purchase sub-surface easements
Associated reduction of quantities for:
• Commuter Rail tracks
• Bridges
• Utilities/drainage
• Systems
• Site works
I love this. But it seems too good to be true. What's the downside?
Here's the full 12/09/15 Arup report for anyone interested: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/A...E MassDOT and FMC Boards ISSUE FINAL copy.pdf
Professionals panned the report as being too vague, but Arup didn't have very much time to prepare the report in the first place. It was prepared in a rush for the FMCB.
perhaps with the replacement of the Union Square GLX with some sort of CR Station at Union Square
Obviously, MassDOT would prefer not to trigger a federal reconsideration. For Maryland's Purple Line light rail, they were able to cut headways, fleet size (and reduce storage yards).Wouldn't the removal of one spur be considered a large change of scope, potentially endangering the Federal Funding? New Start grants include economic development as part of the evaluation process.
Obviously, MassDOT would prefer not to trigger a federal reconsideration. For Maryland's Purple Line light rail, they were able to cut headways, fleet size (and reduce storage yards).
But the FTA also considers costs per new rider and--as Arup hints--Washington St and Union Sq kinda cannibalize each other being so close together.
I'm glad Arup raised the idea of a single-track shuttle to USq. Recall that Union Square was not part of the CLF/State agreement that mandated an extension to Medford Hillside (Tufts)
Obviously, Arup knows their stuff. I'm happy they at least flagged all the station cost-issues that we've discussed here.
I was surprised (and relieved) to see how much might come from not having the Lowell Line cross section so wide at the bottom (it looks like it was padded both between the GLX tracks and again between the GLX and the CR.
I wondered since the start of this, what were the projected headways for the union square branch? It seems like there would be relatively few trains going down that branch.
Basically would it be quicker for someone to get on a shuttle train that is pinging between lechmere and union and then transfer than for them to wait for a train at union under the current plan?
^I should have been clearer: the "U" would be a rail shuttle to Lechmere (I gave it a letter in the hopes it'd be clear I wasn't saying "bus"). Arup implies that single-track GLX alongside the Fitchburg Line would save a lot of $.
I'm just riffing on page 18Do you know how it would "would save a lot of $?"
Union Square Branch
• 3,600 Boardings Daily
• Only 144 for Lechmere Station
• GLX Washington: ½ mile
The Union Square Branch is currently ~ 15% of Construction Cost
• Commuter Rail Station with service to
North Station
• Eliminate Light Rail Transit tracks
and associated works
• Do not relocate commuter rail track
• Shuttle to/from Lechmere
• Bus
• Single track Light Rail Transit
How would a single-track shuttle between Union and Lechmere be any cheaper than a single-track branch between Union and Lechmere? Especially given that the flyovers are already being constructed and Lechmere will be relocated either way.