Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

The bike path site behind the old high school is now roped off and posted for asbestos. Given that the playing field is still hung up with asbestos remediation, I can’t imagine that it’s going to be quick to handle.

According to one of the folks involved with the remediation, the old high school was filled with a particularly friable kind of asbestos, which wasn’t noticed until the heavy demolition was underway.
 
The EGE said:
Yes, between the tracks was the original plan for East Somerville. The tracks north of the station are now slightly closer together, so you'd have to go to street level at the north end of the platform with a short tunnel to Washington Street, but that's doable.

Similarly, the Gilman Square design had a headhouse near the Medford/Pearl intersection (Gilman Square proper), as well as the south entrance. The addition of the west entrance in the current design is a definite plus, but the Pearl Street entrance needs to be built next to the substation. It would shorten the walk from the northeast by about 500 feet (2 minutes) of walking - that's a substantial amount for a new entrance.
Click to expand...

Holy crap that original design for East Somerville was a lot better. You think they could really add on in the future? They'd have to tunnel down, and make a cut in the bridge abutment. Seems like A LOT of work for not a whole lot of value added at this point though, .... the walking distance to the station platform doesn't change much, and the entrance to the station would be immediately adjacent to the current, 'Value Engineered' entrance (already on Washington St).
 
Hm, it hurts to look back at pre-VE designs for this... EGE, do you have a link ready for the earlier Ball Square Designs?
 
Not sure this got posted yet but the CWG slides are up from this months meeting with some nice photos: https://www.mass.gov/doc/glx-virtual-cwg-meeting-presentation-september-7-2021/download

A particularly amusing highlight in the Q&A section:
"Jim Silva: What is the status of Automated Fare Collection (AFC)? Terry answered that Fare Vending Machines will be installed in the lobbies at opening. He stated that AFC 2.0 is a few years away. GLX will undergo AFC 1.5. in the near future and GLX is expected to open using AFC 1.5. Terry agreed to get back to Jim with more information."
 
HelloBostonHi said:
Not sure this got posted yet but the CWG slides are up from this months meeting with some nice photos: https://www.mass.gov/doc/glx-virtual-cwg-meeting-presentation-september-7-2021/download

A particularly amusing highlight in the Q&A section:
"Jim Silva: What is the status of Automated Fare Collection (AFC)? Terry answered that Fare Vending Machines will be installed in the lobbies at opening. He stated that AFC 2.0 is a few years away. GLX will undergo AFC 1.5. in the near future and GLX is expected to open using AFC 1.5. Terry agreed to get back to Jim with more information."
Click to expand...

Great info!! Thanks, buddy!! :)
 
HelloBostonHi said:
Not sure this got posted yet but the CWG slides are up from this months meeting with some nice photos: https://www.mass.gov/doc/glx-virtual-cwg-meeting-presentation-september-7-2021/download

A particularly amusing highlight in the Q&A section:
"Jim Silva: What is the status of Automated Fare Collection (AFC)? Terry answered that Fare Vending Machines will be installed in the lobbies at opening. He stated that AFC 2.0 is a few years away. GLX will undergo AFC 1.5. in the near future and GLX is expected to open using AFC 1.5. Terry agreed to get back to Jim with more information."
Click to expand...

I don't think I have seen AFC "1.5" ever really defined other than moar Fare Vending Machines and finally adding the ability to dispense Charlie Cards at them. What else is it? Will it allow all-door boarding? VEing out fare control on the GLX seemed to be justified by AFC2.0 and all-door boarding happening across the system. If 1.5 doesn't support it, does that mean the GLX will be front door boarding only when it opens?
 
donkeybutlers said:
Free the T.

Would not have to bottle neck service and block it to those who cant afford it.
Click to expand...

Do you have $700m/yr in new revenue to replace fares? And if you do, can you really say the ideal thing to do with it is to get rid of fares rather than investing that $700m/yr in any of the vast number of wish-list projects the MBTA doesn't currently have funding to advance?
 
stefal said:
(And that $600-700 million in fare revenue is guaranteed year over year; no pols deciding to cut it without thinking twice)

If it were easier, I'd be on board...
Click to expand...

This is what makes me leery of proposals to eliminate or significantly reduce fare collection on the T. I think the motivation's the right one, and I would like there to be a conversation about the big-picture stuff like whether transit should be funded as a public service without (or with lower) user fees. It doesn't help that the vast majority of road users (if they avoid the Pike, bridges, and tunnels) don't face user fees in their environmentally-worse mode of transportation. If you're looking at it from a socioeconomic standpoint, the T's fares function as a regressive tax that's particularly burdensome to the lowest-income people most dependent on it (and that's not getting into the express-elevator that is Commuter Rail fares).

All of that said, the flip side of this big-picture conversation is that if you're going to get rid of fares on entry, something has to make up that revenue shortfall, and I am extremely pessimistic about the state legislature's ability to fund a pot of money for fare-free transit that they aren't going to raid for some vanity projects and end up throwing the agency even further into debt. It'd really help this conversation if the politicians pushing for this identified where they want the money to come from, and how that money would be fenced off from whatever whims the governor or speaker of the day might want to spend it on.
 
millerm277 said:
Do you have $700m/yr in new revenue to replace fares? And if you do, can you really say the ideal thing to do with it is to get rid of fares rather than investing that $700m/yr in any of the vast number of wish-list projects the MBTA doesn't currently have funding to advance?
Click to expand...
Brattle Loop said:
It doesn't help that the vast majority of road users (if they avoid the Pike, bridges, and tunnels) don't face user fees in their environmentally-worse mode of transportation.
Click to expand...
Congestion prices/tolls will be much less burdensome if it comes with/subsidizes eliminating fares on public transportation. Also a graduated income tax (which may be on the ballot next year) could accomplish that pretty easily.I understand this is a dirty concept to some people but tax people who can afford it. I would also say speaking of a pot of revenue ;), isnt a portion of pot taxes supposed to go to transportation? That could be explicitly designated to things like this. The answer is taxes of some sort, it is pretty simple really, its how other state services are funded (including a sizable portion of the T budget already).

There are lots of other ways to raise funds. The question is will and that is real. It does requires rethinking the way we relate to public services and frankly nixing the idea that they should be profitable rather than redistributive.
 
bakgwailo said:
I don't think I have seen AFC "1.5" ever really defined other than moar Fare Vending Machines and finally adding the ability to dispense Charlie Cards at them. What else is it? Will it allow all-door boarding? VEing out fare control on the GLX seemed to be justified by AFC2.0 and all-door boarding happening across the system. If 1.5 doesn't support it, does that mean the GLX will be front door boarding only when it opens?
Click to expand...
1.5 is new fare vending machines that are up to modern standards with software and payment protocols (including accepting contactless) and new tap targets on existing fare gates which accept new tappable charlie tickets, which are already rolling out at certain stations. Lastly the new FVMs can dispense charlie cards. But all the other benefits of 2.0 are missing: payment onboard vehicles with contactless, web management of charlie accounts, server side payments, all door boarding, etc.
 
We had all door boarding with Charlie Card 1.0 and some imbecile at the MBTA decided it was better to squeeze out every last penny and add 5 minutes of travel time to the green line because heavens forbid someone not pay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top