Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Interesting how you left out the "absurd anti-Union axe grinding" point. How is it absurd to suggest that as part of cost cutting they consider using non-union labor and waiving prevailing wage laws. Please explain why union labor and prevailing wage laws are needed. They do increase costs.
 
datadyne007 said:
Someone on Reddit is on the GLX Working Committee and wants advice:



Now's your chance to get your words and ideas before MassDOT thru this person.
Click to expand...


Everything from the state and the MBTA seems to be focused on deciding which aspects of the GLX to cut or pare down. I'm having trouble understanding this mentality. I'm sure you can find some savings here and there by scaling down stations, etc. But from my POV the largest issue - by far - is that every element of the project seems to cost way more than it should, based on the per-mile costs of other light rail projects across the country. Sure, the deep cut of the Lowell Line require more complicated stations, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but the disparity between GLX costs and normal LR costs are way too out of whack to blame it just on the topography of the Lowell Line.

Why can't we focus on identifying what things should actually cost and using that knowledge to bid out the project in a competent way?

Honestly, am I missing something?
 
Balerion said:
Everything from the state and the MBTA seems to be focused on deciding which aspects of the GLX to cut or pare down. I'm having trouble understanding this mentality. I'm sure you can find some savings here and there by scaling down stations, etc. But from my POV the largest issue - by far - is that every element of the project seems to cost way more than it should, based on the per-mile costs of other light rail projects across the country. Sure, the deep cut of the Lowell Line require more complicated stations, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but the disparity between GLX costs and normal LR costs are way too out of whack to blame it just on the topography of the Lowell Line.

Why can't we focus on identifying what things should actually cost and using that knowledge to bid out the project in a competent way?

Honestly, am I missing something?
Click to expand...
No, you're not. I agree wholeheartedly. If this project hadn't been bid so poorly with an untested procurement system, it would be built already and we'd all be enjoying a modern transit extension. Instead, thinktanks are capitalizing on this mistake (using a procurement method that had only been used on highway projects) & driving the Koch-funded anti-transit narrative, making the public believe that any investment in transit or passenger comfort is bad, overpriced & unnecessary. I want my tax dollars to be going toward a quality transit system including stations that are not cut down to bare slabs of concrete.

We always talk on here about wanting more people to ditch their cars and ride transit. Part of the lack of appeal of transit to many is its perceived discomforts such as waiting for trains on freezing platforms & run down stations. It we invest in comfortable stations for projected high-volume traffic as the GLX is predicted to garner, then transit may just become more appealing to many.
 
datadyne007 said:
No, you're not. I agree wholeheartedly. If this project hadn't been bid so poorly with an untested procurement system, it would be built already and we'd all be enjoying a modern transit extension. Instead, thinktanks are capitalizing on this mistake (using a procurement method that had only been used on highway projects) & driving the Koch-funded anti-transit narrative, making the public believe that any investment in transit or passenger comfort is bad, overpriced & unnecessary. I want my tax dollars to be going toward a quality transit system including stations that are not cut down to bare slabs of concrete.

We always talk on here about wanting more people to ditch their cars and ride transit. Part of the lack of appeal of transit to many is its perceived discomforts such as waiting for trains on freezing platforms & run down stations. It we invest in comfortable stations for projected high-volume traffic as the GLX is predicted to garner, then transit may just become more appealing to many.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. That and also invest in frequency of service so the system makes rational sense to use, rather than being a huge waste of time (Fairmont Line anyone).
 
Dank memes you say?

fWcjN7c.jpg
 
The first of several GLX public meetings is tonight in Somerville, I'm going to make at least the open house and see if I can get some pictures of the redesigns.
 
Great meeting. Capacity crowd at the armory with people waiting outside.

Plans they proposed were fair: C-line style stops at all stations eliminates head houses, multiple entrances, escalators, etc. Also the prospect of not replacing several bridges if the retaining walls and stripped down stations no longer require them. Also exploring summertime bridge shutdowns for cheaper, faster work.

Union Square station was sketched out as redesigned but this meeting had no state officials from MassDot or any other executive office.

Plans still respect the core integrity of the community path but there were a few insinuations:

- Rt 16 is not on the table since it isn't a dealbreaker for federal funding
- Maintenance shed is cut back by $70 million and wouldn't do any heavy work. Goes from supporting 80 cars to 44.
- At grade crossings may be another way to save money. Example given was Washington Street and I think Lowell Street where the cheapest option would be to walk along a graded path to the tracks and walk across them.
 
I wish I was there but somehow I was not aware of this meeting...

Here's my thought. All of these feature cuts better reduce the costs BELOW $2bn, not back to $2bn. If we strip down and rebid and only bring it back down to $2bn, then we are still getting ripped. Only now getting ripped while eating away many of broth the comforts afforded with full stations and functionality as I would imagine the value of a shed that can do heavy work and house 80 rather than 44 railcars and no work.
 
ant8904 said:
I wish I was there but somehow I was not aware of this meeting...

Here's my thought. All of these feature cuts better reduce the costs BELOW $2bn, not back to $2bn. If we strip down and rebid and only bring it back down to $2bn, then we are still getting ripped. Only now getting ripped while eating away many of broth the comforts afforded with full stations and functionality as I would imagine the value of a shed that can do heavy work and house 80 rather than 44 railcars and no work.
Click to expand...

Lower cost is a reasonable expectation. After sunk costs of $750 million, it seems reasonably that they can complete the scaled back project for less than an additional $1.2 Billion and not something like $1.5 Billion more.

I doubt it will happen for less than $1.5 Billion more because they won't be able to completely fix the procurement process that quickly, but less than $1.2 Billion for the remaining contracts is a very reasonable expectation.
 
I couldn't see anything in the article about how much money they expect to save just by rebidding it under fair procedures. That has to be the really big savings. But the article's focus was on redesign, so OK, the contract procedure was not the topic du jour.

The scaled down repair shop worries me deeply; my understanding is that Green Line repair facilities are severely maxed out and really needed that expansion even before the fleet expands for he extension. I hope the people who know how to project out these things have weighed in on this repair shop reduction. Also, hopefully they've got control of enough land that they can expand the new shop later as needed.

There's been a lot of discussion upthread about the need for stations to not have grade crossings, ADA requirements for access, etc. So I am open to the possibility that with the station downgrades, they are cutting off our collective noses to spite our collective faces.

Having said that, I have zero sympathy for folks whining about standing out in the cold. So if there's really a way to save $200M without violating ADA by having folks stand out in the cold, then let them stand out in the cold. I've been riding the Green Line for 15 years, and standing out in the cold for nearly every day of each winter. (OK, they did add those inky dinky little heated huts a few years back on the D line, I've squeezed in there once or twice when it was below zero, I admit it. Riders on the B, C, and E have no such option, and on the D they're so small there isn't capacity for all who want it on most days.) And it's not only Green Line riders standing in the cold, right?

So unless there is some serious functional reason why the new stations really need head houses (like elevator access), then I'm perfectly ok with having just platforms on the extensions, and then in ten years or so - after they've earned it a bit - the riders over there can have some of those inky dinky little heated huts. In the meantime, I am playing a pitiful dirge on the world's smallest violin.
 
Topics at the meeting (which was only 90 minutes and half of that was public/elected official comment period)

- MVP of each station. What the barest bones options would be that will now be vetted for compliance with legal reqs.
- MVP for community path, including consolidation of some places where it splits to go up to bridge intersections. These would instead all be roadway crossings. Fine I say. Just build something.
- MVP for maintenance facility
- Timeline for next steps through May. (see if we can kee Next meeting is March 23, location TBD, so mark your calendars.

The Globe headline is inaccurate though the story is fair. There was general support for the approach and the cuts, though painful, were received with acceptance. Everyone seems on board for three basic things: Keep all the stops including Union as essentially well-lit slabs of pavement and concrete; Keep the path as essentially a well-lit slab of pavement and concrete; Cut everything else

Only sticking point seemed to be Rt 16 which was not in the presentation and doesn't have the same support from Cambridge and Somerville. Sense was that stop may be the slowest buffalo.

EDIT: Total savings estimated at the meeting was $280-$300 million. Just $400 to $700 to go. Expectation is that would be done through construction scheduling savings and reducing how much they would expand the right of way.
 
West said:
Having said that, I have zero sympathy for folks whining about standing out in the cold. So if there's really a way to save $200M without violating ADA by having folks stand out in the cold, then let them stand out in the cold.
Click to expand...

As a future user of these stations, I couldn't agree more. 1) Take out your smartphone and see when next train arrives. 2) Time your arrival at the station with a train. 3) Get on the train.
 
kjdonovan said:
EDIT: Total savings estimated at the meeting was $280-$300 million. Just $400 to $700 to go. Expectation is that would be done through construction scheduling savings and reducing how much they would expand the right of way.
Click to expand...

Hold back the truck there. That wording implies we are over-budget because we over-engineered and fast track the project too much. Again, we know it is hitting $3BN because of contractor BS. All of stuff you mentioned is what pushed the price from $1BN to $2BN or something on that magnitude.

Again, if we doing all of this shaving and only reducing it to $2BN. We are getting ripped over by the contractors again. Walking away with being paid far more money than they should for the labor and material done.

Seriously, why is no official mentioning that? That discussions is all about killing of features, but with seeming understanding that the cuts would work to bring it down to only the original budget of $2Bn.
 
kjdonovan said:
As a future user of these stations, I couldn't agree more. 1) Take out your smartphone and see when next train arrives. 2) Time your arrival at the station with a train. 3) Get on the train.
Click to expand...

Kjdonovan -- How about the entrepreneurial opportunity for some breakfast shops e.g. Dunkin, Mickey D, Starbucks, etc. -- the commuters could be encouraged to wait inside the shop, buy some food, do some reading, checking headlines, etc., and then like a fancy airline lounge announce the arrival of the next GLX -- why do we always want the T to provide the creature comforts
 
ant8904 said:
Hold back the truck there. That wording implies we are over-budget because we over-engineered and fast track the project too much. Again, we know it is hitting $3BN because of contractor BS. All of stuff you mentioned is what pushed the price from $1BN to $2BN or something on that magnitude.

Again, if we doing all of this shaving and only reducing it to $2BN. We are getting ripped over by the contractors again. Walking away with being paid far more money than they should for the labor and material done.

Seriously, why is no official mentioning that? That discussions is all about killing of features, but with seeming understanding that the cuts would work to bring it down to only the original budget of $2Bn.
Click to expand...

The big project premium is because you are paying an extra 3 layers of subcontractors to bid out large chunks of the project and each layer gets a 40% cut for handing out the work down to the guys really doing the work. Until you break down the project into parts that the smaller companies can bid on, then you won't get real competition and you will be stuck paying all the middlemen's premiums. Looking at the pieces of the project individually and adding up what they would cost to contract out individually leads you to that conclusion. However...

"Eliminating the middleman is never as simple as it sounds. 'Bout 50% of the human race is middlemen, and they don't take kindly to being eliminated"
 
If construction was brought in-house, and expansion of the system was constant, we could get a lot more built, with a lot better efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top