Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[Equilibria]

Well, without details, I think you nailed the difference in the descriptions.

Rebuild is not totally de novo construction.

I would assume that in Chicago, stations are being rebuilt/rehabbed, not built from scratch.

I would assume in Chicago the right-of-way is adequate as is, and does not require new retaining wall work, drainage work, expansion to accommodate the existing lines.

I would assume that the Chicago rebuild does not include a new rail yard and maintenance facility.

Basically correct. Red/Purple is station rebuilds (not all of them, since they've been hitting a few over the past decade), some bridge replacement, a flyover connection where the Red and Purple lines merge with the Brown Line, and I think track and signal work to eliminate slow zones. The "L" structure itself isn't changing.

http://www.transitchicago.com/rpmproject/

 

[JeffDowntown]

Basically correct. Red/Purple is station rehab (not all of them, since they've been hitting a few over the past decade), some bridge replacement, and I think track and signal work to eliminate slow zones. The "L" structure itself isn't changing.

http://www.transitchicago.com/rpmproject/

Also, the part being funded is only 4 stations (and related track, bridges, viaducts and electrical upgrades). And a major intersection rebuild.

GLX is 7 stations, track, right of way, all electrical and signalling systems, station access, plus a major intersection constructed from scratch.

 

[Equilibria]

Also, the part being funded is only 4 stations (and related track, bridges, viaducts and electrical upgrades). And a major intersection rebuild.

GLX is 7 stations, track, right of way, all electrical and signalling systems, station access, plus a major intersection constructed from scratch.

Yeah. That's it. $2.1B is just for their Phase 1.

 

[JumboBuc]

Also, the part being funded is only 4 stations (and related track, bridges, viaducts and electrical upgrades). And a major intersection rebuild.

GLX is 7 stations, track, right of way, all electrical and signalling systems, station access, plus a major intersection constructed from scratch.

The GLX price includes new rolling stock too, no?

I'm willing to bet it's on that list just so it can be removed the next time Elizabeth Warren makes the petulant man-child unhappy.

Somerville is also a sanctuary city I believe, something Trump is targeting. He plays hardball! Will be interesting to see how all this unfolds.

This list comes from the Trump Administration, not from Donald personally. I'd be willing to bet that he's never even heard of the Green Line Extension. One of his advisers likely directed someone at DOT to put together a list of infrastructure projects, and this is what they came up with. There is zero chance Trump knows anything about the "Soo Locks Modernization Project" or the "Chickamauga Lock"...

We are not at the point where Donald is personally winnowing down the list to satisfy his personal vengeances, and we hopefully never will be.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The GLX price includes new rolling stock too, no?





This list comes from the Trump Administration, not from Donald personally. I'd be willing to bet that he's never even heard of the Green Line Extension. One of his advisers likely directed someone at DOT to put together a list of infrastructure projects, and this is what they came up with. There is zero chance Trump knows anything about the "Soo Locks Modernization Project" or the "Chickamauga Lock"...

We are not at the point where Donald is personally winnowing down the list to satisfy his personal vengeances, and we hopefully never will be.

Governors were polled, so I assume Baker weighed in.

 

[Semass]

Didn't we already have a Full Funding Grant Agreement for the project that was being reviewed with the revised project scope? My *guess* is that these are all projects that already had an FFGA or equivalent in place and he intends to honor it. Similar to the various job gains and factory retentions he can claim without actually doing anything?

 

[tangent]

Didn't we already have a Full Funding Grant Agreement for the project that was being reviewed with the revised project scope? My *guess* is that these are all projects that already had an FFGA or equivalent in place and he intends to honor it. Similar to the various job gains and factory retentions he can claim without actually doing anything?

Regionalism aside the new administration isn't going to want to kill major infrastructure projects that are to use the Obama administration term "shovel ready". Otherwise if they start from scratch the projects won't really kick in and have an economic benefit in time for the next election.

 

[datadyne007]

NPC filed on 1/31: http://greenlineextension.org/documents/NPC_Report.pdf

Same stuff we've seen in prior presentations about the proposed VE'ing of the stations & community path, but it's been formalized.

January 31, 2017

On January 31, 2017, the MBTA filed a Notice of Project Change (NPC) for the Green Line Extension Project with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). View the Meeting Presentation

As you know, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has been working to advance the Green Line Extension (GLX) Project, which will bring much-needed light rail service to the municipalities immediately northwest of downtown Boston. The project was subject to MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) review, with a Certificate being issued by the EEA on June 23, 2010, determining that the project properly and adequately complied with MEPA. Construction of the project was phased, with construction starting in 2013.

In late 2015, the MBTA reviewed the project in depth and concluded that the GLX was projecting to be significantly over budget, and could reach $3 billion in total project costs if current trends continued. The GLX was, therefore, suspended by the MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board and the Board of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation until costs could be brought back under control. The Boards created a multidisciplinary management team and tasked it with developing a redesign of the project to reduce anticipated costs while maintaining its core functionality and benefits, as well as the environmental mitigation commitments developed through the state and federal environmental review processes.

The new design of the project continues to maintain the core functionality of the project. The project remains in the same corridor and continues to have seven stations at the same locations as those reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These stations, however, are considerably smaller and scaled back in size and amenities. The service levels (e.g., frequency, speed, hours of operations, etc.) remain the same. As a result, ridership and air quality benefits remain unchanged from those reviewed in the EIR.

The project also includes a Vehicle Maintenance Facility in its same proposed location, but while that facility is reduced substantially in size, it maintains its core functionality for light maintenance and storage for the additional light rail vehicles required for the extension of Green Line service. In addition, all of the environmental mitigation commitments made in the Draft Section 61 Findings continue in place. The MBTA is not proposing any new or reduced mitigation compared to that which was codified in the Draft Section 61 document.

The MBTA has prepared the Notice of Project Change for your review. The NPC presents all of the changes made to the project since it was reviewed by MEPA. The MBTA strongly believes that none of these changes result in any new or different environmental impacts compared to those that were reviewed under the prior EIR. The MBTA also believes that all of the environmental benefits associated with the project as presented in the EIR remain unchanged. Lastly, all of the mitigation agreed to previously remains intact and a commitment of the MBTA.

In light of that, we believe that no additional MEPA review is warranted and submitted this Notice of Project Change in the hopes of receiving a determination from MEPA to that effect.

EEA will now accept public comments on this document. Comments should be addressed to:

Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: MEPA Office
Holly Johnson, EEA No. 13886
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us

Comments must be received by EEA no later than 5 PM on Tuesday, February 28, 2017.

If you have any questions, or if you would like to receive a hard copy of the Notice of Project Change document, please contact the Green Line Extension project team at info@glxinfo.org

http://greenlineextension.org/

 

[Equilibria]

3 finalist teams have been selected by the MBTA.

http://patch.com/massachusetts/some...firms-short-list-green-line-extension-project

 

[JumboBuc]

Globe: Feds OK Green Line extension costs, securing project’s future

The Federal Transit Administration has approved the MBTA’s new cost estimate for a scaled-down version of the Green Line extension into Somerville and Medford, a critical milestone that effectively ensures the $2.3 billion project will move forward.

[...]

 

[tysmith95]

Globe: Feds OK Green Line extension costs, securing project’s future

Yay, I guess. Now blue line, blue line, common trump we need a blue line extension.

 

[Semass]

Yay, I guess. Now blue line, blue line, common trump we need a blue line extension.

Instead we are looking at $1 billion for an inherently flawed South Coast Rail. For half that we could execute the already designed Red/Blue Connector. We don't even have preliminary design for BLX.

 

[Wash]

Not strictly on topic, but I've heard a lot on these pages about the Union Square branch of the Green line extension being extended further down the Fitchburg line ROW to Porter Square. Curious as to how that would be done.

The Fitchburg ROW is quite narrow past Union Square, especially in the immediate vicinity of Porter Square itself. Where would the platform for the Green Line go at Porter, and what would need to be done digging/construction-wise to put it there? And fitting a platform in is the easy part; what about the turnaround loop/storage siding for green line vehicles?

 

[Charlie_mta]

You wouldn't need a loop at Porter, just as there isn't one being planned for the terminus at Union Square.

As for fitting the extra two tracks in at Porter, it could be done. There is room on the south side to use the strip where the 4th track used to be, and you could shave away some of the parking lot there as needed. On the other side, next to Somerville Ave, there is no room, but you could tunnel the one additional track under Somerville Ave.

Not that hard to do, and the two extra tracks could be extended to Watertown via the old Watertown Branch RR line. Just a short tunnel for the west bound track under Somerville Ave and Mass Ave, and some altering of the foundation of the surface building of the Red Line Porter station to slip the new eastbound track under it and Mass Ave. The Fitchburg ROW is 4 tracks wide west of Mass Ave.

 

[The EGE]

Up to Sacramento Street, there's enough width (old freight sidings) for four tracks without much issue. West of there, the Green Line dives under the CR tracks, so that you're fully under them for the station.

You wouldn't need a true yard; additional tail tracks should be fine. But there are opportunities for additional yard space west of Porter - either by taking parking/relocatable light industrial.

From there, you can go to Watertown or Waltham. Plusses and minus to both.

 

[Balerion]

Is the Watertown Branch ROW wide enough for light rail and the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway to coexist?

 

[fattony]

I wonder how much impact GLX to Porter would really have. The neighborhood density is fine for one transit line, but I don't see major redevelopment that would densify it enough to capitalize on a second. At least not any time soon. And the commuter rail there already cannibalizes a lot of GLX ridership potential. Development potential is more in that intermediate stop area around Park to Sacremento, but there isn't much. Neighborhood opposition would be high, I think.

Porter is not a major bus transfer destination, that falls primarily on Davis and Harvard. Maybe extending a lot of Davis buses to Porter would make sense if Green were there? I think bus connections would be essential, much more so than extending further west.

In the near term, relief for Park Street transfers seems the greatest benefit. In the long term, if the economy keeps rolling along and redevelopment of 2/3 families into larger buildings is allowed, then I see a significant change to the geometry of the city. Porter would become a transit hub with potential as a major employment center. Of course, eating all those valuable 2/3 families to redevelop isn't like Kendall or Seaport clear cut development. It would take an act of god.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I wonder how much impact GLX to Porter would really have. The neighborhood density is fine for one transit line, but I don't see major redevelopment that would densify it enough to capitalize on a second. At least not any time soon. And the commuter rail there already cannibalizes a lot of GLX ridership potential. Development potential is more in that intermediate stop area around Park to Sacremento, but there isn't much. Neighborhood opposition would be high, I think.

Porter is not a major bus transfer destination, that falls primarily on Davis and Harvard. Maybe extending a lot of Davis buses to Porter would make sense if Green were there? I think bus connections would be essential, much more so than extending further west.

In the near term, relief for Park Street transfers seems the greatest benefit. In the long term, if the economy keeps rolling along and redevelopment of 2/3 families into larger buildings is allowed, then I see a significant change to the geometry of the city. Porter would become a transit hub with potential as a major employment center. Of course, eating all those valuable 2/3 families to redevelop isn't like Kendall or Seaport clear cut development. It would take an act of god.

I think the idea is to take some load off of overtaxed Red headed for Park and DTC transfers (Trips not just originating at Porter, but also Alewife and Davis). Instead transfer at Porter and ride the Green Line in to your Green Line destinations downtown.

 

[Arlington]

You wouldn't need a loop at Porter, just as there isn't one being planned for the terminus at Union Square.

In fact, we learned early on in the GLX process that just as there's a "no more street running" rule, there's a "no more loops" rule.

The center platform with two tracks was superior for at least 3 reasons:
- No crazy track wear, wheel wear, or loop squeal (NIMBYs who always hate to let go of an objection to a terminus, were momentarily flustered when told that, no, it won't look like Heath St at College Ave or Rt 16)
- Zero or easier takings (terminal tasks stay mostly within existing ROW or at least station footprint)
- More flexible operationally: easier to buffer headways or take a trainset out of service or re-sequence LIFO or FIFO (instead of the loop's single-track, FIFO-only)

Basically, loops originated in the era of the horse-drawn omnibus (or the single ended locomotive) and have been obsolete since double-ended controls and bi-directional propulsion came in. That turning radii got wider as vehicles got longer (multi-truck and MU) also disfavors loops.

 

[Arlington]

I think the idea is to take some load off of overtaxed Red headed for Park and DTC transfers (Trips not just originating at Porter, but also Alewife and Davis). Instead transfer at Porter and ride the Green Line in to your Green Line destinations downtown.

^This

I'm sure there's some local O&D whose trip leads to downtown Green stations who'd prefer not to crush the Red between Harvard and Park.

A decent number of 77 riders get off at Porter to save the slog on Mass Ave to/from Harvard. The more of these that can board a Green, the better.

You might also see more people from the 87/88 connect at Porter (or Sacramento) instead of boarding the Red at Davis. Yes, they could stay on their 87/88 if they were going to Union, but I suspect they're going downtown and the Green would be better.