Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[tangent]

Seems like a combination of cost cutting or offloading some of the related projects and perhaps putting out parts of the project to bid again could put it back on track. Maybe phasing it out further. Delaying it a bit, yet again, but there is too much momentum to just kill the project outright.

Although I've suggested in the past that this would have been better off as a dedicated BRT. At this point a lot of people are set on this being light rail and I don't think the cost savings are worth the shear headache of endless bickering over the merits of steel on steel versus rubber on asphalt.

 

[bigeman312]

The government is expected to provide basic services. In this particular instance, they have a legal obligation to provide that service. What are people supposed to do when the government is delinquent in providing a service that they have a reasonable and legal expectation of receiving? If you just sit on your hands because you don't want to do any damage to the "taxpayers" then you get nothing and the government faces no repercussions for bad governance.

I agree. It's fucked up. Action needs to be taken. You'll have a hard time finding many people who want this done more than me. I'm just pointing out the problem with the system.

 

[The EGE]

Put one-dollar bidirectional tolls at both ends of the Central Artery Tunnel. You'd pay for the extra billion in a decade*, entirely borne by those using the project that initiated the GLX.


*Assume 180k cars through the tunnel (most recent traffic counts I could find) times $2 each times 300 days (250 weekdays plus half on weekends) = $ 108 M / yr

 

[bigeman312]

Put one-dollar bidirectional tolls at both ends of the Central Artery Tunnel. You'd pay for the extra billion in a decade*, entirely borne by those using the project that initiated the GLX.


*Assume 180k cars through the tunnel (most recent traffic counts I could find) times $2 each times 300 days (250 weekdays plus half on weekends) = $ 108 M / yr

+1

It' legally required as part of the Big Dig mitigation so this makes perfect sense.

 

[kevtron2000]

I don't understand why some people think that we should just cancel the entire project. People have spent so many years planning/constructing, yet the entire prohect still isn't completed yet.

 

[CSTH]

Can we change the name of this thread back to "Green Line to somerville to start running in 2012" or whatever it used to be...just for spite?

 

[bolehboleh]

I can't imagine them cancelling the whole thing. We might just end up with a shorter extension.

 

[Arlington]

Move yard storage back to vacant land (Yard 8) already owned and on-line in Brickbottom instead of condemning and demolishing active employers!

 

[underground]

Can we change the name of this thread back to "Green Line to somerville to start running in 2012" or whatever it used to be...just for spite?

2nd.

 

[Jahvon09]

What happens to the land that was set aside & was used to construct the extension? Does it just get left as is if the project is cancelled and becomes a long graveyard for junk?

 

[Scipio]

The first post of this thread is so depressing:

The long awaited extension of the green line to Medford will begin in 2011.

Service to begin in December of 2014.

http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffi...06em/13886.pdf

The second post of this thread was also typed out in 2006, but we're saying the same things nine years later:

It takes 8 freakin' years to lay track on an existing ROW???

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

 

[ceo]

I've never understood the enthusiasm people have for proof-of-payment. It's always struck me as an open invitation to racial profiling. If you want stations with ramps instead of elevators and no fare gates, one option is left-side-running, but it still reeks of half-assery.
I guarantee you the T will not ever build any more stations where you have to cross active track to get to the train. Especially where there's no platform on the other side and you board from the left. It's a huge ADA violation, never mind mucking up operations by making trains wait for trains in the other direction to clear the station.
Speaking of ADA, if you have elevators, you need two. Elevators break.
And yes, a lot of stuff got added to this project. Unfortunately when you build a project like this you find things that have needed fixing for years and need to be fixed in order for the project to go through, like the drainage work at Miller's River and under the Harvard Street Bridge.
What I've not seen yet is any numbers from the Independent Cost Estimator on what the bid ought to be.

 

[fattony]

Seems like a combination of cost cutting or offloading some of the related projects and perhaps putting out parts of the project to bid again could put it back on track. Maybe phasing it out further. Delaying it a bit, yet again, but there is too much momentum to just kill the project outright.

Although I've suggested in the past that this would have been better off as a dedicated BRT. At this point a lot of people are set on this being light rail and I don't think the cost savings are worth the shear headache of endless bickering over the merits of steel on steel versus rubber on asphalt.

GLX adds balance to the extremely lopsided Green Line system. The benefits extend far beyond the people riding a trolley through Somerville. I'm not competent enough to explain it off the top of my head, but read through this thread and you'll find the explanations why GLX has a big system-wide impact.

BRT through Somerville would do nothing for Green Line ops.

 

[ant8904]

I've never understood the enthusiasm people have for proof-of-payment. It's always struck me as an open invitation to racial profiling. If you want stations with ramps instead of elevators and no fare gates, one option is left-side-running, but it still reeks of half-assery.
I guarantee you the T will not ever build any more stations where you have to cross active track to get to the train. Especially where there's no platform on the other side and you board from the left. It's a huge ADA violation, never mind mucking up operations by making trains wait for trains in the other direction to clear the station.
Speaking of ADA, if you have elevators, you need two. Elevators break.
And yes, a lot of stuff got added to this project. Unfortunately when you build a project like this you find things that have needed fixing for years and need to be fixed in order for the project to go through, like the drainage work at Miller's River and under the Harvard Street Bridge.
What I've not seen yet is any numbers from the Independent Cost Estimator on what the bid ought to be.

Because it speeds up boarding while negligible negative effects to collection while costing very little. Such benefits in speed for little cost. While, you reason is not the reason we are not doing it. I find it troubling that it's a reason at all to think about.

 

[datadyne007]

Because it speeds up boarding while negligible negative effects to collection while costing very little. Such benefits in speed for little cost. While, your reason is not the reason we are not doing it. I find it troubling that it's a reason at all to think about.

I have absolutely never heard that reasoning regarding POP and found it troubling as well.

 

[Scipio]

I've never understood the enthusiasm people have for proof-of-payment. It's always struck me as an open invitation to racial profiling.

With a well-executed POP system you aren't going to have some crusty old racist enforcement officer challenging whoever he feels like to prove their payment.

Instead they work in small teams, enter a vehicle right before the doors close, and then scan as many people as they can inside a single vehicle before fare evaders have the chance to escape at next stop. Ideally every person on a vehicle has their fare checked during these enforcement checks, but that might prove difficult during rush hours. Even if racists (or ageists, sexists, homophobes) are being hired as enforcement officers they aren't given the opportunity to exercise their prejudices, since their job is the check everyone's fare.

 

[cozzyd]

The POP enforcement in LA that I've witnessed consists of people scanning everyone coming up the escalator from the train.

 

[datadyne007]

Jim Aloisi tweeted yesterday:

Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 17h ago

Take a lesson from $1.7m SL4 service replacing $2.1b SLphase3: we don't need gold plated GLX we need a functional GLX. #mapoli

https://twitter.com/JimAloisi/status/635935771615211520

Today, he followed up with an article of how he would handle it:

Stay the course on Green Line Ext.
But streamline the project and install new managers

JAMES ALOISI Aug 25, 2015

First, those in charge of the Green Line Extension project should be held accountable for their utter failure to keep the lid on costs. I am, as you know, a big supporter of the MBTA and its employees, but there comes a time when you need to call the question on poor performance, and this is such a time.

...

Second, lets continue the project but on a more realistic, scaled-down basis. Cutting back on the proposed pedestrian and bike path would be a mistake. The way to extract meaningful savings won’t be to nickel and dime those project elements that are specifically designed to offer modal choices and modal equity. But the question must be asked: Why do we need gold or silver-plated transit stations along a light rail corridor? Why can’t we have very nice, functional stops similar to those along the Green Line in Newton and Brookline? My sense is that the proposed Green Line Extension stations, as currently designed, may be a large driver of the high costs. If so, lets move away from that quickly, and focus on moving people from origin to destination in a reliable and safe manner. We need the best functional extension, not the best imaginable extension.

This quandary is reminiscent of something I’ve written about before: the rejection of the proposed Silver Line Phase 3 in 2009. This is an instructive tale worth repeating. I shelved an unrealistic proposed $2.1 billion Silver Line tunnel project, and directed the T to build instead what was basically the same service at a total cost of $1.7 million.

...

Third, its time to test all prior assumptions. Does the Green Line Extension really need its own new maintenance facility? I was told innumerable times when I was secretary that this was a critical necessity. The original placement of the proposed maintenance facility was close to the Brickbottom residential building and was holding up the project. We made a decision to relocate it, and unlocked the logjam in 2009. But I wonder whether anyone has taken a fresh look at the cost of this proposed facility and its absolute necessity and functionality?

...

There ought to be no turning back from extending the Green Line to Union Square and Tufts University. The Green Line is a state commitment following a lawsuit that successfully challenged our misguided auto-centric investments of the 20th century.

...

We don’t need the best outcome; we need the best functional outcome. Getting this right will pay huge dividends, not just for the people who will use the Green Line Extension, but also for everyone whose mobility future depends upon maintaining public confidence in our public transportation system.

...

Full article:
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/stay-the-course-on-green-line-ext/

 

[Shepard]

I completely agree with Aloisi. I think there's also a lot of "mitigation" crap that can be shelved. For example: sound barriers? Why? Aren't all of these adjacent buildings already getting noise from the much noisier Commuter Rail? Taking a walk through any of the Brookline and Newton neighborhoods traversed by the D line would quickly dispel the notion that trolley noise will depress property values.

 

[CSTH]

I agree with all of this, but my understanding is that all of this is necessary but not sufficient.

GLX in any form ultimately depends on political will in this state to invest more in expanded transit and invest less in auto infrastructure (/raise more revenue from cars as a gas tax and or tolls).

Simplified stations and fewer bells and whistles needs to happen, as does more effective management - those are necessary prerequisite to getting political buy in. But we, the citizens of the commonwealth, will need to demand that investment go into projects like this. Period.

In retrospect, losing the gas tax hike was a debacle. Given the East - West dynamics in the state, i think boston area tolls / congestion charges / parking reform are probably the most promising strategy.