Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

whittle said:
It seems to be engineers are also saying "make it wider". The federal guidelines, which I have yet to see a compelling argument should be ignored, call for a minimum of an 11ft wide path with a minimum 1ft buffer on each side before any fences or barriers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05137/05137.pdf

http://imentaraddod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AASHTO-GBF-4-2012-bicycle.pdf
Click to expand...

How about we just leave empty support columns (and spend the money on GLX platform shelters and double-ended access) until we can afford it as wide as bike advocates want?

Right now, the station platforms are leaving blank space for future lengthening, and future "other end" entrances (Gilman*) rather than being built full-length. Maybe the bike bridge sections should be handled the same way: left blank; not blocked, but not built either.

A great case can be made that building it at its current width is somehow long-term-insufficient (and that'd be wasteful if our future selves have to demolish bridge sections and build them wider)

But there's a lot of future proofing on the station thsemselves that could (should?) be done in the GLX that isn't. It strikes me as a priority inversion that we're future-proofing the bike path first.

*Gilman should have two full-service entrances: School St (which it will) and Medford St (which it won't). Instead of extending the station all the way to an entrance from Medford St, they tie it into the nearby path, guaranteeing that the path will be choked with walkers and that thru bikes are gonna bellyache.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/02/05/glx_Gilman_Sq_Station_1218.pdf
The "complete" view of this station would have paid the extra to tie the entrance to big, capacious, multi-modal Medford St (better for every mode) not cheaped out on a path that will basically never be appropriate for thru-biking.

If I had to spend $ on being long-term bike friendly, it'd be (have been) on building Gilman's other entrance on Medford St. As it is, we're going to soon have another "victim of success moment and need to tear the path entry out and build it Medford St instead.
 
Last edited:
^That's why I'd vote to go forward even with the 10ft. path. Yes, it's not ideal. It's too small. But I don't think abandoning it entirely this go around is the answer. I hope the advocates and contractors can find a way to widen it a little.
 
Arlington said:
How about we just leave empty support columns (and spend the money on GLX platform shelters and double-ended access) until we can afford it as wide as bike advocates want?

Right now, the station platforms are leaving blank space for future lengthening, and future "other end" entrances (Gilman) rather than being built full-length. Maybe the bike bridge sections should be handled the same way: left blank; not blocked, but not built either.

A great case can be made that building it at its current width is somehow long-term-insufficient (and that'd be wasteful if our future selves have to demolish bridge sections and build them wider)

But there's a lot of future proofing on the station thsemselves that could (should?) be done in the GLX that isn't. It strikes me as a priority inversion that we're future-proofing the bike path first.
Click to expand...

Much of the stretch, from the article, is along retaining walls. As I already said in my last post, this isn't something where room can be left for future construction, it's build now or never. Anyway, for the third time, it's all a useless debate until the price tags are known.
 
Arlington said:
How about we just leave empty support columns (and spend the money on GLX platform shelters and double-ended access) until we can afford it as wide as bike advocates want?

Right now, the station platforms are leaving blank space for future lengthening, and future "other end" entrances (Gilman*) rather than being built full-length. Maybe the bike bridge sections should be handled the same way: left blank; not blocked, but not built either.

A great case can be made that building it at its current width is somehow long-term-insufficient (and that'd be wasteful if our future selves have to demolish bridge sections and build them wider)

But there's a lot of future proofing on the station thsemselves that could (should?) be done in the GLX that isn't. It strikes me as a priority inversion that we're future-proofing the bike path first.

*Gilman should have two full-service entrances: School St (which it will) and Medford St (which it won't). Instead of extending the station all the way to an entrance from Medford St, they tie it into the nearby path, guaranteeing that the path will be choked with walkers and that thru bikes are gonna bellyache.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/02/05/glx_Gilman_Sq_Station_1218.pdf
The "complete" view of this station would have paid the extra to tie the entrance to big, capacious, multi-modal Medford St (better for every mode) not cheaped out on a path that will basically never be appropriate for thru-biking.

If I had to spend $ on being long-term bike friendly, it'd be (have been) on building Gilman's other entrance on Medford St. As it is, we're going to soon have another "victim of success moment and need to tear the path entry out and build it Medford St instead.
Click to expand...

The provisions for the station lengthening make no sense. I can't imagine how with future mobilization costs and construction impacts that it doesn't make sense to just build them a little longer now. We're talking like 40-60ft of additional pre-fab platform sections.

It's also not about a "bike path" and appeasing cycling advocates, it's that they are building station access paths that are narrower than current standards and won't work from day one. They are non-compliant in a sense. Like building a highway with 8ft lanes because it costs more to make it wider, meanwhile no one said 8ft lanes are acceptable or work. The path provides a major means of access for the stations and is meant to help mitigate the traffic impact of the GLX. The GLX cuts across Somerville streets, not alongside them, so a path is what connects the neighborhoods to the station.
 
Rover said:
If we're going to jack up the cost by an extra 500M in order to widen the path by 2 feet, then I think bikers should pay extra to help bear the burden of that cost. Perhaps a statewide bike registration fee similar to a car registration?
Click to expand...

If you want to play the People Should Pay For What They Use game then drivers will owe non drivers billions of dollars. So that is fine with me. As a non driver I would be getting back thousands of my tax dollars.

Making the path more dangerous to save money is ridiculous. They would never do that with a highway. It is sickening that cars are treated better than people around here.
 
Keep your axe out of here Kinopio. The discussion here is spatial and budgetary constraints versus the call for increasing space. A discussion how the implications between the difference sizes, the dangers of scope creep, the constraints in the space it is being built in, and it's been a harping on Arlington's argument (which it seems he meant more of using calming techniques so people don't get run over if more space is not available rather than we shouldn't make it wider if we can). We don't need your us vs them worldview framing everything as a persecution.
 
sm89 said:
It's also not about a "bike path" and appeasing cycling advocates, it's that they are building station access paths that are narrower than current standards and won't work from day one. They are non-compliant in a sense. Like building a highway with 8ft lanes because it costs more to make it wider, meanwhile no one said 8ft lanes are acceptable or work. The path provides a major means of access for the stations and is meant to help mitigate the traffic impact of the GLX. The GLX cuts across Somerville streets, not alongside them, so a path is what connects the neighborhoods to the station.
Click to expand...

Great, then cancel the whole bike path thing and stick with the primary focus of the project, the Green Line extension. Works for me.

FK4 has a fair point about lets see the final cost estimate. I was using figures someone else had posted for the 500M, but really even if its half that I can't see justifying that much money to give bikers the ability to ride like lunatics down the path. Call it a pedestrian walkway then and ban bikes as long as its not adding to the total cost. This project has already had enough overruns.
 
Last edited:
It seems like there are police officers posted up on both sides of the Washington St road closure 24/7. This seems like a colossal waste of money, all that is needed is concrete barriers and signs.
 
tysmith95 said:
It seems like there are police officers posted up on both sides of the Washington St road closure 24/7. This seems like a colossal waste of money, all that is needed is concrete barriers and signs.
Click to expand...

They're everywhere. This morning there were 2 on the SCP at Cedar (usually it's 1) and 1 more about 100 feet away at Morrison at Cedar. Some of the key closures and bridge removals are forcing a lot of traffic onto streets that aren't equipped to handle that volume. So I appreciate having them there, especially when I'm on foot or on a bike. The cost has got to be wild though.
 
Lrfox said:
They're everywhere. This morning there were 2 on the SCP at Cedar (usually it's 1) and 1 more about 100 feet away at Morrison at Cedar. Some of the key closures and bridge removals are forcing a lot of traffic onto streets that aren't equipped to handle that volume. So I appreciate having them there, especially when I'm on foot or on a bike. The cost has got to be wild though.
Click to expand...
it's funny tho, they are sitting both sides of the washington st underpass but they aren't on the side streets as much as they were. It's frustrating to see them on Washington st where nothing can really happen and then see cars do crazy things on tufts, Cross, Alston and the McGrath on ramp. I've seen plenty of cars come down Alston and then go the wrong way down the McGrath on ramp to get back on to washington, all the while there's police sat in their car around the corner where no cars are going.
Just venting. The place is a mess but hopefully it will be worth it.
While I'm venting, I see they plan to take down the McCarthy overpass in 2026. They are estimating that this project will take four years... FOUR YEARS???
right... done now.
 
The Somerville Community Path as presently designed is deeply unwelcoming to walkers as it's deep in the GLX/CR trench. It's essentially just a cycle track for getting around Somerville. People wanting to go for a stroll around Somerville should just stay at the surface on the sidewalk.
 
tysmith95 said:
It seems like there are police officers posted up on both sides of the Washington St road closure 24/7. This seems like a colossal waste of money, all that is needed is concrete barriers and signs.
Click to expand...
Standard police union shakedown policy all over the state, traffic details are a lucrative cash grab. MA is the only state requiring, under threat of arrest, an officer at even the most inconsequential of road work sites where orange cones would work just fine. Been this way for years and of course there is no spine to be found at the state house to change this, pols take their orders from the union. So much corruption.
 
datadyne007 said:
The Somerville Community Path as presently designed is deeply unwelcoming to walkers as it's deep in the GLX/CR trench. It's essentially just a cycle track for getting around Somerville. People wanting to go for a stroll around Somerville should just stay at the surface on the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

That’s what I anticipate will happen. Part of the draw of the current path for walkers/leisure users is what’s around it. Green space, parks/playgrounds, trees, dog parks, benches, community gardens, etc. it’s far more appealing than the sidewalks on parallel streets. The extension has none of that. Nearby streets are going to be more inviting for anyone walking (especially for leisure).
 
Brad Plaid said:
Standard police union shakedown policy all over the state, traffic details are a lucrative cash grab. MA is the only state requiring, under threat of arrest, an officer at even the most inconsequential of road work sites where orange cones would work just fine. Been this way for years and of course there is no spine to be found at the state house to change this, pols take their orders from the union. So much corruption.
Click to expand...

Actually, a measure did pass (I think it was a voter-initiated ballot item, since the State govt would never, ever, ever allow something this rational yet detrimental to the cops' pockets to pass) a few years ago, that allowed civilian flaggers. What happened was many local municipalities immediately passed local measures preventing civilian flaggers. But they do exist in MA now.
 
FK4 said:
Actually, a measure did pass (I think it was a voter-initiated ballot item, since the State govt would never, ever, ever allow something this rational yet detrimental to the cops' pockets to pass) a few years ago, that allowed civilian flaggers. What happened was many local municipalities immediately passed local measures preventing civilian flaggers. But they do exist in MA now.
Click to expand...

My question is, on a road that will be closed for 6 months to a year, are flaggers even necessary? Why can't you just put up concrete blocks and fencing?
 
I just read two update stories from last year - ten years after the law was passed. It was weak, and barely effected state police anyway. Google it and you can find the articles. I would also guess that Somerville voted it not allow the flaggers. It’s all very disheartening... the law enforcement unions in this state are a cancer, for sure.
 
I go through Morrison and Cedar 2-3 times a day, and when there isn't an officer directing traffic it's a complete and utter shitshow. It also is when the officer is just standing there doing nothing instead of directing traffic.
And yes, the requiring police officers as flaggers thing is completely ludicrous. It's blatant featherbedding like this that turns otherwise sensible people against unions.
 
In re cops in streets: Baltimore used to have an officer at a grid of about 9 downtown intersections at rush hours (about 3block x 3blocks at the very center).

Studies showed that traffic moved best when the officer was there and simply mirrored/enforced whatever the traffic lights were indicating.

(more effective than the lights, alone, since it got compliance, but also not worth the officer's thinking they could outsmart the engineers by overriding the signals, where they'd probably guess wrong and definitely caused confusion)
 
I've read somewhere that the Type 9s will be moved over to THAT line when it is completed. Is there any truth to this story?

I guess to make the new line look 'glamorous & all that'.
 
No, the Type 9s will mix in with everything else. The extension creates the requirement for additional cars, which will happen to be Type 9, but dispatch will continue to function across all branches and those cars will see service all over the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top