Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
175
They are currently laying a large-diameter drain pipe under the future CR side of the right of way. It is possible that the inlets to it are currently blocked/cut-off by construction.
 

RandomWalk

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
668
Reaction score
25
They have installed bypasses for the segments under construction, but they are vastly undersized for the storms we had recently.
 

jbray

New member
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
39
Reaction score
6
They are currently laying a large-diameter drain pipe under the future CR side of the right of way. It is possible that the inlets to it are currently blocked/cut-off by construction.
They have installed bypasses for the segments under construction, but they are vastly undersized for the storms we had recently.
It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The flooding was gone by days end and this was a couple of weeks ago now. But I read that quote from you Arlington and I loved the juxtaposition of the photo (from Cedar St. looking north at Ball Square for those who are unfamiliar).
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
476
Reaction score
161

This seems like a very myopic way of looking at this. More often than not you see these projects getting far higher ridership once they open. That, and the development it will bring will add riders over time.
It does raise the question of how their calculations show the pathetic SCR Phase 1 having a 50% fare recovery ratio while GLX only having 2.3%, something seems off there. I refuse to believe that SCR will be more profitable than GLX for very long.
 

whittle

Active Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
227
Reaction score
8
The big deal is that most potential GLX riders are already transit users, so it won't bring in new much new revenue. But this isn't assuming changes in bus service. Or, as van mentioned, additional development.

When those numbers were presented at the FMCB it seemed like everyone was in agreement that was a bad way of looking at things; I believe they've raised skepticism over how realistic the GLX operations costs are (as in they seem strangely high).

Pollack suggested that instead of just looking at the new revenue/new expenses per project, a better framing would be to look at the expected revenues and costs for each line/mode before and after each project. I think that makes sense since it show that the Green Line won't have a pitiful fare recovery ratio (but the 88 probably will).
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,146
Reaction score
110
The big deal is that most potential GLX riders are already transit users, so it won't bring in new much new revenue. But this isn't assuming changes in bus service. Or, as van mentioned, additional development.
And this is exactly why it's not a good success metric. For GLX, the success comes in moving the same (or slightly higher) number of people more efficiently. To financially quantify that, we'd need to look at the cost to each rider of spending more time on the 'T.

Pollack suggested that instead of just looking at the new revenue/new expenses per project, a better framing would be to look at the expected revenues and costs for each line/mode before and after each project. I think that makes sense since it show that the Green Line won't have a pitiful fare recovery ratio (but the 88 probably will).
The Secretary is right, and it's another way besides what I suggest above to think about this. Operating a light rail line is less expensive per rider than the buses it will displace.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
175
...but it will need to actually displace those buses.

If we run the buses empty (after the GLX has cannibalized their revenue) that would be bad.
If we redeploy the buses into places where they can win new customers that'd be good.

E.g. using the buses to steal mode share from cars in the whole "wedge" Camb-Arl-Som-Med-Winchester.
 
Last edited:

The EGE

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
682
Reaction score
17
That $1M figure is utterly incorrect. I'm not sure if it's an error or a fake, but it's bunk.

The FEIR predicted 7,900 new linked trips (i.e. 4,000 new transit riders) from the GLX. (I think that's rather low, but we'll run with that.) If we assume everyone uses a monthly (pay-as-you-go will roughly balance out discounted passes), that's $4.3M in new revenue per year. And that's pretty much the low-end estimate that ignores things like the fact that those buses could potentially be carrying a lot of new riders.

My personal guess is that number is supposed to be $11 million, which puts the farebox recovery ratio for the change in service around 25%. That's not terrible for a project that's improving service for a lot of existing riders. Given the ridership density expected for the stations, the GLX will probably outperform the ~40% overall farebox recovery ratio for the Green Line.

Meanwhile, the ridership projections for SCR have been ridiculously inflated for many years now.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
175
I am ashamed for my City (Medford) to even post this, but the Green Line Extension Working Group has asked to the state to review its "concept" for SUSPENDING LOWELL LINE CR SERVICE to "speed construction"

Green Line Extension Group pushes for Medford commuter rail suspension to speed up construction work, eliminate noise

They say it will represent "relief for up to 18,000 residents in close the proximity to the work"

My first objection is that there's no way that "close proximity" == 18,000 of anything and it is a bit embarrassing that they even throw that number out there.

Second, as people who obviously commute by neither CR nor GL, they seem not to care about the other validated number: 10,000 Lowell Line commuters per day.

Councilor Marks says: "This is to start the dialogue. Is it exactly what will happen? No one knows, but if it helps residents, I’m in support of it. We’ll give it to the MBTA and hopefully, they’ll sit down with the GLX Community Group and come up with something.”

(He's under no illusion that this will come to be, but he was OK passing it along as a plea for relief).
 

whittle

Active Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
227
Reaction score
8
That $1M figure is utterly incorrect. I'm not sure if it's an error or a fake, but it's bunk.

The FEIR predicted 7,900 new linked trips (i.e. 4,000 new transit riders) from the GLX. (I think that's rather low, but we'll run with that.) If we assume everyone uses a monthly (pay-as-you-go will roughly balance out discounted passes), that's $4.3M in new revenue per year. And that's pretty much the low-end estimate that ignores things like the fact that those buses could potentially be carrying a lot of new riders.

My personal guess is that number is supposed to be $11 million, which puts the farebox recovery ratio for the change in service around 25%. That's not terrible for a project that's improving service for a lot of existing riders. Given the ridership density expected for the stations, the GLX will probably outperform the ~40% overall farebox recovery ratio for the Green Line.

Meanwhile, the ridership projections for SCR have been ridiculously inflated for many years now.
I'd taken it at quasi-face value since I'd remembered reading something a couple years ago about the T studying the costs and revenues from the green line extension and it was projected to lose a lot of money. Turns I was right, but those numbers didn't agree with what they're saying now:

John Dalton, the T manager overseeing the Green Line Extension, said the operating costs on the new stretch of track from Lechmere into Somerville and Medford will be $26 million a year, partially offset by fare revenue of $3 million a year.
 

Wonk

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
Didn't the GLX team say at a FMCB meeting in August that the timeline for moving the CR back on to its permanent side of the ROW had slipped on paper, but the real internal goal was to get it completed by this month in order to prevent further delays due to winter weather?

It doesn't seem like they are really all that close to being able to lay CR track on that side, or am I misinterpreting the photos?
 
Last edited:

ceo

Active Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
16
It doesn't seem like they are really all that close to being able to lay CR track on that side, or am I misinterpreting the photos?
I've been wondering that too. Hard frost this morning and they're still digging to place that storm drain line and drilling for retaining walls and sound walls.
 

Semass

Active Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
690
Reaction score
9
Not explicitly part of GLX but required for GLX - bidding is open for the Lechmere Viaduct repair:

"Work in general consist of repair and rehabilitation of the East Cambridge (Lechmere) Viaduct carrying the MBTA Green line from Science Park Station to Charlestown Avenue in Boston and Cambridge, MA. The viaduct includes 12 spans over Nashua Street, the Charles River, Museum Way and Charlestown Avenue. Work includes replacement of the track and bridge superstructure and safety walks; repair and rehabilitation of the concrete floorbeams, arches and piers; strengthening the arch spans with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) fiber wrap; steel strengthening and repairs of the Bascule Span over the Charles River; Overhead Catenary System replacement; and signal replacement. "
 

chmeeee

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
277
Reaction score
12
Is that split on photos 5 and 7 where the Union branch will split off?
I believe the piers to the left side of the photos (that do not yet have steel on them) are the Medford branch. The bridge that curves up and then left is the flying split towards Union. The branch to the right will go to the yard.
 

Top