Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Gilman Square from the outer end looking inbound with Medford Street bridge distance
82EA7523-42B9-4C26-8CC3-F2D6885906DB.jpeg

looking outbound
B9DC691F-C22F-4E49-BEBD-2A75599B625E.jpeg

looking inbound
4DD7F2ED-EEB5-49F8-B34D-939F31D504E8.jpeg

3BE69CF1-11F5-4CBF-9BFB-79C43DFBC50C.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ball Sq viewed from Boston Ave.
From left to right we see the canopy, the track level access to the center platform, and at far right the structure for the elevators and Broadway level entrance
A35EB8D2-2DD8-4384-AD7D-52E26133857F.jpeg

Not shown (I just out of the frame to the right) Are the two elevator towers now installed
 
On the Lechmere viaduct has anyone seen the new finish coat or finish state of the concrete?

It seemed like at one point they were applying a concrete colored seal coat but I couldn’t quite see if it was an intermediate or final state nor how widely it was going to be applied
 
Those are glorious pictures but I was unclear—I was trying to aski about what the finished surface of the old viaduct would be (And if we had seen it yet)
 
BeeLine said:
These may help answer your question.
IMG_8960 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8964 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8966 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8968 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8973 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8972 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8975 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8974 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Excellent photos as usual. Hopefully there is some money to maybe put a mural on that blank wall. People who bought the condos on the lower floors of the Glass Factory must not be too happy staring at that wall. If I lived there I would rather see the trains go by and maybe put up with the noise than look out and see that every day. The trains will pass by very closely to Avalon and Ava yet there were no walls built there. I wonder why it was necessary here?
 
What is being supported? Is that a temporary structure? Why are the supports not evenly placed?
51261748200_0961c3cf93_b.jpg
 
Damn, I was worried supply chains would be holding this up :/
 
Not only delayed, but some how the MBTA is on the hook for an extra $80 million as a result of the DB entity's delays...
 
RandomWalk said:
It’s a shame they can’t open the bike path earlier, as the segments are completed.
Click to expand...
Did they say they couldn’t open the paths? Opening at least some segments would be a win win for everyone to say: We opened something and improved mobility
 
Arlington said:
Darn:
The GLX will be delayed 6 months per today's MassDOT FMCB meeting. New service dates:
* Union Square: December 2021
* Medford: May 2022

https://www.facebook.com/mbtaglx/posts/10157870268491681
Click to expand...
The last note was Union on Halloween - only a 2 month delay.

Medford will take the full 6 - too bad that the bike trail won't be available until at least next summer.

I still am surprised there's no reference yet to the structural work delays on that viaduct and museum station.
 
Act 1:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1401957340899913734

Act 2:

F-Line to Dudley said:
The Globe is pathetic: that's the gist of it.

They manage to wring 500 words of maximum concern-trolling out of a handful of "Crunch Time: Why it be so crunch?!?!" matter-of-fact quotes that foretold nothing wrong. In a sprint to the finish, no shit there's a possibility of delays if something unforeseen were to happen to any of the simultaneous sprints being artfully choreographed. The officials state they don't have any specific concerns, nor are they truly worried if any come along. Great...a non-story none of us need to worry about.

But Globe gotta Globe and try to milk it for any controversy they can, so here you go.
Click to expand...
F-Line to Dudley said:
Ahem: [news outlet John W. Henry owns] publishes absolutely broken piece full of 100% pure supposition utterly unsupported by official statements..official statements on the matter making up the *bulk* of the word count. That's what this is about. Not whether web mastheads are separated by church-and-state this week compared to last week.

It's an objectively TERRIBLE piece of writing/reporting. No editor should've allowed it to be published under either of their mastheads under any circumstances. Pure...unadulterated...trollbait. The fact that it occupies a prime slot at the top of the headlines in the explicit NEWS section is doubly-problematic, because BDC rarely ever puts its pure clickbait efforts under the frickin' NEWS section. BOTH mastheads in this organization lately sure do like to traffic in a lot of transpo trollbaiting, so this thin-assed story making it to pub extends that rapsheet and absolutely does impugn the Globe too for contributing to the same behavior pattern. I don't buy this argument that we shouldn't trust BDC's lying eyes on-spec or should stuff the notion that this is an org of fellow travelers with same upper-level management down a memory hole. The organization cross-pollenates between the two mastheads routinely and always has historically tried to boost BDC's street cred with its Globe huevos and vice versa when the shoe fits. Plus: prime placement in the @#$% top NEWS section. When an indie BDC has stepped in it, the Globe has taken it on the chin. For 25 years now. They're intentionally presented as cogs in the same machine regardless of what this past week's snapshot of the newsroom org chart splits for hairs. How is any of this news to anyone remotely familiar with Boston media???


The fact that it still a day later is prominently featured on the homepage and near the top of the NEWS section headlines is disqualifying for the outlet's editorial standards. And if this was supposed to be the reporter's showcase audition for the Vaccaro vacancy, it and the accompanying limp Twitter thread are immediately disqualifying. Of both the reporter and the organization. The official quotes so very generously padding the word count here do not hint at any conclusion that the project is in trouble of missing a deadline. It mischaracterizes the unchanging official line on the sanctity of the deadline. It pushes a willfully naive premise about the very nature of how construction sprints are full of born interdependencies that...yes...*could* result in a delay if something goes out-of-sync. Which has not happened yet according to any of the quotes, and for which no follow-up was asked by this or any other of their reporters.

It's a garbage piece that shouldn't have been published. Not by the Globe. Not by BDC. Not by any news outlet that stops some distance short of throwing a parade for their own proud trashiness.
Click to expand...

Act 3:

300px-Surprised_Pikachu_HD.jpg


Real reporters - 1
F-line - 0
 
Last edited:
jass said:
Lol.

Real reporters - 1
F-line - 0
Click to expand...

Not quite sure how you got to this conclusion, but to each their own. Having read the original Boston.com piece, I think F-Line's commentary largely holds up even in light of today's news. The "real reporters" as you put it didn't report anything beyond the official statements/comments quoted in the piece, none of which said anything like "it's not going to be ready on time". At best, with hindsight, it can all be read to suggest the possibility of a delay, at least if you're reading between the lines. The only actual official information or reporting in the piece didn't say it would be delayed, didn't say it might be delayed, and on their face could just as easily be read as "we think we'll be fine but don't want to promise in case something goes wrong", which may be annoying but is unquestionably common from public officials all the time. My read of the article, at the time, was that it was unsupported speculation, because all it did was take anodyne comments and suggest a deeper meaning. That that deeper meaning, the project delay, came true does not, in my view, exonerate the article as you suggest it does, because the whole thing was either based on speculation, or, worse, was based on information not included in the piece, which is the opposite of good reporting. If they knew more than the quotes in it, which could perfectly fairly be read as "who knows, things happen" rather than "yeah, we're in trouble", they should have reported it, and the fact that they didn't, in my view, makes the criticism stand up all the same despite the news today.

That said, maybe Boston.com/the Globe could do a little less parsing official statements and get to doing some "real reporting" on filling in the blanks as to what, exactly, is responsible for this latest delay. Pandemic-related supply chain issues, for instance, would be understandable given the situation, as opposed to, say, yet more mismanagement which we've become uncomfortably familiar over the years with in this state, but we simply don't know the answer to that in anything more than vague terms. Sounds like an opportunity for those real reporters, eh?
 
Brattle Loop said:
My read of the article, at the time, was that it was unsupported speculation, because all it did was take anodyne comments and suggest a deeper meaning.
Click to expand...

The Globe is not a tabloid. When they publish something like that, its because they know exactly what is happening but are not allowed to quote someone. Thats pretty much journalism 101 and Im surprised both you and F are confused by that.

Had the Herald reported it, than yeah, grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top