Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

I mean, those decisions were made decades apart....
You're right. Politically and funding-wise the projects are eons apart. It's just a bit jarring to me that GLX had to undergo some substantive VE economies, including downgrading of the stations, while the Big Dig did not at least that I know of, and I followed it closely at the time. Granted, the 1980's were a different time with much more powerful political muscle working on Massachusetts behalf (Tip O'Neill).
 
You're right. Politically and funding-wise the projects are eons apart. It's just a bit jarring to me that GLX had to undergo some substantive VE economies, including downgrading of the stations, while the Big Dig did not at least that I know of, and I followed it closely at the time. Granted, the 1980's were a different time with much more powerful political muscle working on Massachusetts behalf (Tip O'Neill).

I think it's fair to say that, toward any public transit endeavor, we've never seen anything like the sheer magnitude of cash infusion toward civil engineering technology that the car-centric Big Dig saw. Engineering-wise, everything about the Big Dig was gold-plated/Ferrari-scale at the time: slurry wall construction of tunnel walls that big had never been done, a cable-stayed bridge of that width and capacity had never been done, etc.

Imagine a high-efficiency, high-automation, whisper-quiet mag-lev Green Line Ultra...the analogy would be for an investment in that if this were the Big Dig version of GLX/GL improvement. And I'm not even saying we should do that here - I'm just saying that would be the analogy.
 
You're right. Politically and funding-wise the projects are eons apart. It's just a bit jarring to me that GLX had to undergo some substantive VE economies, including downgrading of the stations, while the Big Dig did not at least that I know of, and I followed it closely at the time. Granted, the 1980's were a different time with much more powerful political muscle working on Massachusetts behalf (Tip O'Neill).
There are elements that they VE'd. For example the O'Neill Tunnel was supposed to have tile that went to the ceiling like the Williams Tunnel, but instead they just did 10 or so feet up. There was a document that I saw maybe 15 years ago(!?!) that talked about cost control.
 
We are drifting off-topic here but I don't think we can ever politically bring back Mike Dukakis ,Fred Salvucci, Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neil and George Schultz to make something like the Dig happen ever again.


Article from City Journal autumn 2007 that I think explains it well.
"Lessons of Boston’s Big Dig"



 
We are drifting off-topic here but I don't think we can ever politically bring back Mike Dukakis ,Fred Salvucci, Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neil and George Schultz to make something like the Dig happen ever again.


Article from City Journal autumn 2007 that I think explains it well.
"Lessons of Boston’s Big Dig"




@reno, thank you for sharing this. I'd seen this once before a while ago and it's an excellent article that anyone interested in infrastructure should read.

I succumbed to some hyperbolizing in my post above, but my main point, as clearly supported in that article, was simply that the Big Dig was highly ambitious from a technology standpoint. People forget that sometimes. Whether or not wall tiles were VE'd late in the game is beside that point. I'm not saying GLX needed to be technologically ambitious. I was just pointing out that Charlie's statement about GLX not getting the most advanced treatment is supported (and I'm not intending to delve into whether we really need that for GLX).
 
There are elements that they VE'd. For example the O'Neill Tunnel was supposed to have tile that went to the ceiling like the Williams Tunnel, but instead they just did 10 or so feet up. There was a document that I saw maybe 15 years ago(!?!) that talked about cost control.
You're right; I'd forgotten about that one. In any case, the new elevated portion of GLX looks fine to me, even though it is concrete piers and steel girders. Concrete box girders (instead of the steel girders) might have complemented better the adjacent historic concrete archway over the Charles River, but that's subjective and not a big deal to me. I'm just happy it's getting done and that it looks pretty good.
 
We are drifting off-topic here but I don't think we can ever politically bring back Mike Dukakis ,Fred Salvucci, Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neil and George Schultz to make something like the Dig happen ever again.


Article from City Journal autumn 2007 that I think explains it well.
"Lessons of Boston’s Big Dig"




The Federal side is actually BETTER:

President Amtrak
Buttigieg - Transpo
Granholm - Energy
Walsh - Labor
Raimondo - Commerce
some pretty good positioning Fed-wise
..........and I don't think Biden - Pelosi/Schumer relationship on this urban mass transportation be any worse to work than Reagan/O'Neil/Howard Baker-Bob Dole.

Fed-wise, I'm not sure it will ever be any better than this for NE urban mass transit projects.

The only holdup is is that the Commonwealth has a 6'5" obstacle on Beacon Hill.
 
Last edited:
They need to turn some artists loose on those huge concrete crossbeams.

Give it some time. Troublemakers will be along, shortly, probably at night when no one is out there, to add their own special touch of graffiti to them!! Hah!! :(
 
Last edited:
Are the stations going to have faregates? Originally they weren't going to and the Green Line was going to proof-of-payment, but has that changed with the delays to AFC 2.0?

I think someone lurks ;)

 
RE: Fare collection

While the T has taken steps in recent years to crack down on fare evaders, the agency is concerned that plans to upgrade the system to allow electronic payments and all-door boarding will exacerbate the problem.


So what scofflaw, who is not going to pay their fare and refuses to show proof of purchase, is going to provide their personal information to a "civilian inspector" so that they can receive their ticket? Sounds a little unrealistic.
 
RE: Fare collection

While the T has taken steps in recent years to crack down on fare evaders, the agency is concerned that plans to upgrade the system to allow electronic payments and all-door boarding will exacerbate the problem.


So what scofflaw, who is not going to pay their fare and refuses to show proof of purchase, is going to provide their personal information to a "civilian inspector" so that they can receive their ticket? Sounds a little unrealistic.

I suppose a better approach would be for the inspector to have a gun and shoot the scofflaw dead, right there on the train?
 
So what scofflaw, who is not going to pay their fare and refuses to show proof of purchase, is going to provide their personal information to a "civilian inspector" so that they can receive their ticket? Sounds a little unrealistic.

....So?

We should run MBTA like a business. Every business projects shrinkage and life goes on.

Like imagine if Best Buy had exit gates and you had to scan your receipt.

Instead, they have a civilian inspector who asks to see your receipt. You can say no and move on. They cannot pursue. Life goes on.
 
RE: Fare collection

While the T has taken steps in recent years to crack down on fare evaders, the agency is concerned that plans to upgrade the system to allow electronic payments and all-door boarding will exacerbate the problem.


So what scofflaw, who is not going to pay their fare and refuses to show proof of purchase, is going to provide their personal information to a "civilian inspector" so that they can receive their ticket? Sounds a little unrealistic.
The same way that 95% of people pay their fare today when boarding the bus. The bus driver isn't going to arrest you if you don't.

Also because civilian fare inspectors will still have authority to call the police if needed if someone refuses to comply. That usually gets people willing to either show ID or leave.

Works fine in the UK, London has an incredibly effective fare collection system run entirely by proof of payment, civilian fare inspectors, and then fare gates where possible.

My one critique is not having fare gates at GLX stations, and not having people tap out at subway stations. I'd argue 90% of people boarding at surface level/GLX stops will leave the train at a gated station, if they had tap-out then they would still be forced to pay, fare inspection or not.
 
Honest question: do fare validation machines allow multiple fares to be paid with one Charlie Card?

Also the jumble of:
  1. Some Green Line stations have fare gates that you need to pay at
  2. Some have fare validation machines on the platform that you need to tap at before boarding
  3. Some have no fare validation mechanism and you need to pay on board (at the front door only)
    1. Except on some trains you'll be able to get on and pay at that back door
  4. Some have fare validation machines on the platform that don't work, and you need to ignore those and pay on board (see 3)
is legitimately confusing, even for regular T riders! And with the potential for this legitimate confusion, it's going to be hard to enforce "stiff fines" on people who don't have validated tickets.

I've ridded plenty of GL trains where the on-board fare collector doesn't work, and conductors just wave people on. Conductors often do the same on crowded trains, even when the validators do work. In a world where these sanctioned T practices exist, you then can't fine people on board trains who don't have validated fares. You need to implement rock solid fare validation everywhere before you can impose fines anywhere. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

We've talked about this before on this thread, but with the grade-separated, controlled access designs of many GL stations (see, e.g., Union, Gilman, Magoun, Medford/Tufts) it's almost like the T is intentionally going out of its way not to install fare gates in places where they naturally fit. I don't get it.

The same way that 95% of people pay their fare today when boarding the bus. The bus driver isn't going to arrest you if you don't.

Also because civilian fare inspectors will still have authority to call the police if needed if someone refuses to comply. That usually gets people willing to either show ID or leave.

Works fine in the UK, London has an incredibly effective fare collection system run entirely by proof of payment, civilian fare inspectors, and then fare gates where possible.

My one critique is not having fare gates at GLX stations, and not having people tap out at subway stations. I'd argue 90% of people boarding at surface level/GLX stops will leave the train at a gated station, if they had tap-out then they would still be forced to pay, fare inspection or not.

There's a lot of documented psychology about the way people respond to barriers and norms when it comes to rules compliance. Plenty of people will sneak on the back door of a GL train without paying (I used to see it every day when riding the E, or boarding the D at Fenway), but that same person won't tell the conductor to eff off if they get called out for it. And that same person also probably won't jump the turnstile at a gated station. Different social interactions and expectations lead to different behaviors. It feels "sneaky" to hop on a train without paying when nobody is watching, but it feels "wrong" to jump a turnstile. Most fare evaders are not hardened criminals who will stop at nothing to get on the train for free; they're slightly mischievous people who will just slip through it it's easy to not pay, but still pay when they get called out on it. Non-gated off-board validation with no (or minimal) checks gives them another easy way to slip through, but if you put up a gate they'd probably pay.
 
Last edited:
The same way that 95% of people pay their fare today when boarding the bus. The bus driver isn't going to arrest you if you don't.

Also because civilian fare inspectors will still have authority to call the police if needed if someone refuses to comply. That usually gets people willing to either show ID or leave.

Works fine in the UK, London has an incredibly effective fare collection system run entirely by proof of payment, civilian fare inspectors, and then fare gates where possible.

My one critique is not having fare gates at GLX stations, and not having people tap out at subway stations. I'd argue 90% of people boarding at surface level/GLX stops will leave the train at a gated station, if they had tap-out then they would still be forced to pay, fare inspection or not.
Tap in / tap out also give the T the ability to actually monitor real station to station, line to line usage (not their bogus, not random sampled, meaningless in station surveys).
 
Found this interesting 6-page factsheet that the MBTA is sharing on the webpages for their "proof of payment" public meetings.

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/03-05-2021-fare-payment-verification.pdf

Having been on a number of proof-of-payment systems in North America and Europe, I don't find that it's any harder to use as a rider. As long as, the line is made very clear from where you are entering a "paid" area versus an "unpaid" area. And verification, as long as the penalty is stiff enough, is a sufficient deterrent to most people skipping out on fares.
 
Interesting they didnt look at NJ, which AFAIK runs the only east coast PoP system on the 3 light rail lines. (Not on buses)
 

Back
Top