Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

davem would be well served to get a life. Not everybody can be bothered to go look at postings from 10 years ago, especially as you say circumstances may have changed. A lot of those discussions are also pure insanity, so if someone has a question grounded in reality, a reference to some long ago comment is just stupid IMHO.

I beg to differ. Those old threads are amazing, provide invaluable understanding, and are just plain fun to read.

If you think 10 years is a long time for rail infrastructure project, you really to spend some time reading up on the history.
 
Then let people be nice about it. Whenever you ask a simple question you inevitably get some snarky response to go find a discussion that was had in the previous decade about a certain subject when a quick answer would suffice. If someone posts "we covered that here" of course I take a look. If someone posts something like "stop hijacking the thread, you should have already known this discussion was had in this other thread" then I'll respond in kind. IMHO too many people who've been out here for a very long time tend to think everybody remembers every discussion as well as they do, and don't have a problem letting you know it. A little give and take on this matter isn't a bad thing.

Davem was just stating a fact, he wasn't being mean about. You asking him to get a life, that's rude. I'm sorry but Davem was just trying to help, you're being an a-hole about it.
 
Davem was just stating a fact, he wasn't being mean about. You asking him to get a life, that's rude. I'm sorry but Davem was just trying to help, you're being an a-hole about it.

My problem with davem starts with a different thread (seaport one) when someone asked a transportation question, I asked a follow up and then he singled me out as hijacking the thread. So, while I'll give back as good as I get I agree that I should have kept that off this thread so I'll leave it there and we can get back to the virtues of the GLX which I think most of us are in favor of.
 
Nice to see you back, Dave.

...good to be back?? :rolleyes:

I'm actually around daily, but I'm finishing up my thesis, preparing to move out of state, etc, etc. So my only posts tend to be out of frustration when I think I'm going to click on a topic I'm interested in, and instead read two pages of unrelated drivel rehashing yhe same thing we talked about last year.
..and the year before that
.....and the year before that
.............and the past five years before that.

General forum decorum is thst a quick off topic tangent (question and an answer or two) is okay. But once you start delving into details or an actual discussion about the tangent topic, you announce you will be discussing it in the relevant thread (existing or newly created) and link to it. That way topical discussion continues in the appropriate places, aiding clarity of the whole forum, as well as searching in the future.


Here's a hint. Go to google and in the search bar type

site:www.archboston.org "whateveryoursearchis"

Then instead of reading through "years of insanity" you can quickly find the actual fact based discussion, with official engineering documents, analysis, etc.

I also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss our discussions. A big chunk of the whole Peoples Pike advocacy for the mass pike realignment started right here. And a few people I know in planning departments, and MassDOT lurk here. Or at least did.




-----------------------------------------------

As much as the branching to Union has over inflated this particular project, and probably would have been served just fine by a stop on Washington street, I think the future proofing of having a grade separated flyover will be of benefit to future generations looking to expand. Load balacing at terminals is also another fringe benefit, and also ensures at least two lines are required to go beyond North Station.
 
My problem with davem starts with a different thread (seaport one) when someone asked a transportation question, I asked a follow up and then he singled me out as hijacking the thread. So, while I'll give back as good as I get I agree that I should have kept that off this thread so I'll leave it there and we can get back to the virtues of the GLX which I think most of us are in favor of.

Just a bit of advice, which you are of course free to ignore, but maybe you shouldn't personalize interactions. I pay very little attention to the names of who said what, unless I have need to address the person directly. I think you'll find it much easier to get along, if you don't let a grudge develop in one thread in the first place, but if you do, there is certainly no reason to carry it in to another.

And as Fat Tony suggested, the threads DaveM mentioned have some invaluable data, along with some very entertaining thought experiments. Well worth the read!
 
^Thats curious - they quote the operating deficit of the entire green line and mattapan line at 97M a year. So why would this extension be proportionally so costly in operating costs? Is this some sort of spun figure?
 
^Thats curious - they quote the operating deficit of the entire green line and mattapan line at 97M a year. So why would this extension be proportionally so costly in operating costs? Is this some sort of spun figure?

Yeah, the article is really leaving me scratching my head. It also seems like the fair box would be more than $3 Million - maybe they are only counting what they think would be 'new ridership' instead of people already paying for bus service or something ?
 
Yeah, the article is really leaving me scratching my head. It also seems like the fair box would be more than $3 Million - maybe they are only counting what they think would be 'new ridership' instead of people already paying for bus service or something ?

Maybe they are including the operating costs of the new yard and repair shop, which of course serves more than just the extension.
 
^Thats curious - they quote the operating deficit of the entire green line and mattapan line at 97M a year. So why would this extension be proportionally so costly in operating costs? Is this some sort of spun figure?

One of the theories I've heard for their numbers is that that any expected rider that already would have a T pass is not included in the revenue. So, if you have a monthly pass already because you take a bus to the red line, then you are counted as $0 of revenue if you now take the GLX.
 
Maybe they are including the operating costs of the new yard and repair shop, which of course serves more than just the extension.
$3M in marginal revenue, if entirely from people buying monthly passes, implies only 3,125 more people will start commuting on the T because of GLX.

The combined weekday inbound Blue Book numbers for the 80, 87, 88, 89, and 101 is 9,541. Is it really the case that we're expecting a net increase in ridership of less than a third of current bus traffic (much less bus+walking to other T stations)? I would think the benefit of a direct rapid connection to downtown would draw a bit more than that.
 
$3M in marginal revenue, if entirely from people buying monthly passes, implies only 3,125 more people will start commuting on the T because of GLX.

The combined weekday inbound Blue Book numbers for the 80, 87, 88, 89, and 101 is 9,541. Is it really the case that we're expecting a net increase in ridership of less than a third of current bus traffic (much less bus+walking to other T stations)? I would think the benefit of a direct rapid connection to downtown would draw a bit more than that.

On day 1 maybe those numbers are right, but it'll only take a year or 2 after opening for massive numbers of rentals to change over to more transit oriented occupants (at much higher prices, no doubt).
 
$3M in marginal revenue, if entirely from people buying monthly passes, implies only 3,125 more people will start commuting on the T because of GLX.

The combined weekday inbound Blue Book numbers for the 80, 87, 88, 89, and 101 is 9,541. Is it really the case that we're expecting a net increase in ridership of less than a third of current bus traffic (much less bus+walking to other T stations)? I would think the benefit of a direct rapid connection to downtown would draw a bit more than that.

Especially since Somerville is planning on adding nearly 2,500 new housing units right around the Union Square stop alone.

And if it were true that most future GLX riders are current bus riders, wouldn't this imply the bus operation costs should go down? As of 2015, the average subsidy per passenger trip for busses was over twice that of light rail. On average, every passenger trip that switches from bus to light rail saves the T $1.47. Obviously there is a difference between marginal cost and average cost, but surely there would still be cost savings on the bus side of things.
 
One of the theories I've heard for their numbers is that that any expected rider that already would have a T pass is not included in the revenue. So, if you have a monthly pass already because you take a bus to the red line, then you are counted as $0 of revenue if you now take the GLX.

Maybe they are including the operating costs of the new yard and repair shop, which of course serves more than just the extension.

Both of these make sense. So in a way, yes, the figure is spun.
 
And if it were true that most future GLX riders are current bus riders, wouldn't this imply the bus operation costs should go down? As of 2015, the average subsidy per passenger trip for busses was over twice that of light rail. On average, every passenger trip that switches from bus to light rail saves the T $1.47. Obviously there is a difference between marginal cost and average cost, but surely there would still be cost savings on the bus side of things.

Only if the MBTA cuts back on some of the redundant bus service or shifts it areas where it could cause an increase in ridership. Otherwise you're still spending the same amount on buses as before, but for less riders.

Here's what I would do to some the bus lines in the area:


  • 80 - This is the route that most closely follows GLX and the Tufts to Lechmere component looks to be particularly irrelevant. Instead of going down Broadway past Powder House, have it go down College Ave and terminate at Davis. This would refocus the route on connecting the couple miles past the GLX terminus to the Green Line and Red Line. Also make sure the schedule gives regular headways with the 94 from West Medford to Davis.

  • 87 - Keep unchanged. Does anyone know what the fate of the Lechmere busway will be? If it is scrapped, I wouldn't be opposed to having the 87 terminate at Union Square or Twin City Plaza.

  • 88 - Scrap entirely and replace with better 90 service (see below).

  • 89 - Keep unchanged. A decent chunk of the riders it loses to people getting directly on the green line might be replaced with people using it to connect to the Ball Square Green Line Station.
  • 90 - Extend from Davis to Clarendon Hill and increase frequency. The added frequency could be limited to Clarendon Hill - Sullivan. A Highland Ave bus should still exist for access to Somerville City Hall, High School, and the Library, and the 90 will provide more utility than the 88 once GLX takes over the Lechmere bound traffic.

  • Also several of the routes that connect the Union Square area to the Orange and Red Lines could potentially be scrapped or scaled back. Most notably the 85.
 
Last edited:
Bus rationalization should be both a cost & ridership winner. Something they'll all (including the 96 and 94) have in common:

1) Starting at a bus hub like Arlington Center (more extensions from Clarendon Hill) or Medford Sq (Town of Arlington needs more TOD on Broaway
2) Hitting both a Red and Green before terminating
- Green hubs seem to be College Ave and Union Sq
- Red hub is now just Davis, Union Sq <-> Central Sq should be very powerful
3) Trading shorter routing for higher frequency (more turns per rush)
 
I like the windows. They look very much like the old PCC "picture window" cars.
 
I like the windows. They look very much like the old PCC "picture window" cars.
- It is a retro look, particularly the window gaskets. I suppose this is a good thing: LRVs do not need to be aerodynamic to be great
- I hope the end-door windows are well-placed (given how small and "tunnel vision" they seem)
- The roofline looks like it is doing something interesting...is it for venting? rainwater management?
 

Back
Top