Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[tangent]

A BRT option for the GLX was considered and rejected in the original study back in 1994. I forget the exact reasoning, but I think it's still on the GLX website. IIRC it wasn't actually cheaper and had much lower capacity.

Those conclusions would be out of date. BRT lines run at higher capacities than trolley lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

As for cheaper, that depends, but every comparison I have looked at so far puts BRT costs much lower both for the infrastructure and the vehicles.

I know I was biased against buses. I think more people should be taking another lookat BRT. If not as a GLX alternative, but rather as an alternative for future expansion projects. Unfortunately GLX is another one of those projects where technology choices made twenty years ago don't hold up now.

 

[CantabAmager]

Those conclusions would be out of date. BRT lines run at higher capacities than trolley lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

As for cheaper, that depends, but every comparison I have looked at so far puts BRT costs much lower both for the infrastructure and the vehicles.

I know I was biased against buses. I think more people should be taking another lookat BRT. If not as a GLX alternative, but rather as an alternative for future expansion projects. Unfortunately GLX is another one of those projects where technology choices made twenty years ago don't hold up now.

You're going to need to run 3 to 4 busses to make up the same capacity for a single GLX trainset (and figure out where you're running those busses - bus lanes won't fit in the Lowell ROW). The ops per pax costs are going through the roof on that one - BRT should be a part of the system, but I think BRT's is funnel people to GLX, not supplant it. Capital costs are lower for BRT, but ops and maintenance costs aren't. Capacity is lower. And influence on economic development is significantly lower. The MBTA was all about BRT for a period there - that even in that climate it was rejected for GLX should indicate that it's just not as quality on option as light-rail.

EDIT: Also, BRT can run at higher-capacity than some light-rail lines, but that's heavily dependent on local circumstance. Don't make it so absolute, I agree with you fully that busses and segregated bus infrastructure deserves a more dignified place in Boston - but the BRT think tanks (in my opinion at least) are too aggressive in trying to denigrate light-rail, and trying to build BRT up to standards it can't really live up too. It's a cooperation, it can only every work like that.

 

[Scalziand]

Be careful of BRT - you might get this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTfastrak

You're going to need to run 3 to 4 busses to make up the same capacity for a single GLX trainset (and figure out where you're running those busses - bus lanes won't fit in the Lowell ROW). The ops per pax costs are going through the roof on that one - BRT should be a part of the system, but I think BRT's is funnel people to GLX, not supplant it. Capital costs are lower for BRT, but ops and maintenance costs aren't. Capacity is lower. And influence on economic development is significantly lower. The MBTA was all about BRT for a period there - that even in that climate it was rejected for GLX should indicate that it's just not as quality on option as light-rail.

That describes some of the issues with CTfastrak too. The rail ROW cannibalized for the busway wasn't wide enough, requiring expensive extra land purchases, and single lane sections. This drove the cost far above what it should have cost to simply reactivate the tracks and get some rolling stock. At least its demolishing the ridership predictions.

 

[Arlington]

Please write to the GLX office with your cost saving ideas. Here is the address.
TO:
"Mass DOT" <planning@dot.state.ma.us>,
"GLX Comments" <info@glxinfo.com>

And here is a model letter:

SUBJECT: Option 5: Switch Green Line to Proof-of-Payment, save about $1B.

Please consider that switching the Green Line to a Proof-of-Payment systems on all surface and GLX segments could:

- Increase average speed of vehicles (as all-door boarding shortens dwell times)
- Shorten trip times for users (as dwell time savings add up over each trip)
- REDUCE fare evasion (most POP systems have lower rates of evasion than "Gate" systems)
- Allow the current fleet and yards to do enough more work to "cover" the GLX
- Eliminate the need for additional vehicles (faster ops mean more or longer runs per shift)
- Eliminate the need for additional yard space to hold additional vehicles
- Remove fare gates and associated headhouse costs from GLX stations

The GLX has suffered from an irrational use of 1920-era technology: the fare gate and fare box.

Norfolk's TIDE LRT and San Francisco MUNI have proven that Proof-of-Payment works better, faster, cheaper at fare collection than fareboxes and faregates.

On the existing B, C, D, & E, fareboxes (and single-door boarding) increase dwell time, slow trips, and mean the slow-moving fleet does less work than a faster-average-speed system could with the same number of vehicles.

On the proposed GLX, costs spiraled out of control this way:
- Slow ops on existing branches meant existing fleet couldn't cover an expanded system
- Expanded system would need more cars
- More cars would need more storage and maintenance
Result: $400m in costs: $100m of car procurement and $300m of new yards

Further:
- expected 3 or 4 car ops required fare gates
- fare gates required headhouses
- headhouses required escalators and elevators
- Stations got way more expensive (another $300m in the plan, looking like $500m with overruns)

Something like $1b is being spent because the MBTA won't switch to Proof of Payment. Switch and Save (the GLX and our transit $)

Sincerely,

 

[kjdonovan]

Really good WBUR interview yesterday with Sec Pollock. Meghna goes after her hard —*and the CLF says it will consider additional litigation if the proposal is mothballed. https://radioboston.wbur.org/2015/08/25/green-line-extension

It is very hard to understand that Pollock both says, "We are not slowing down on current work—this could stay on schedule," and also say "We are ready to pull the plug if need be." Sounds like some brinksmanship with the contractors and a hope for some external funding help. Anyone have Steve Wynn's number?

 

[Semass]

Arlington, you ought to send that letter to the Globe while this is still in the news cycle.

 

[bigeman312]

Please write to the GLX office with your cost saving ideas. Here is the address.
TO:
"Mass DOT" <planning@dot.state.ma.us>,
"GLX Comments" <info@glxinfo.com>

And here is a model letter:

SUBJECT: Option 5: Switch Green Line to Proof-of-Payment, save about $1B.

Please consider that switching the Green Line to a Proof-of-Payment systems on all surface and GLX segments could:

- Increase average speed of vehicles (as all-door boarding shortens dwell times)
- Shorten trip times for users (as dwell time savings add up over each trip)
- REDUCE fare evasion (most POP systems have lower rates of evasion than "Gate" systems)
- Allow the current fleet and yards to do enough more work to "cover" the GLX
- Eliminate the need for additional vehicles (faster ops mean more or longer runs per shift)

...

On the existing B, C, D, & E, fareboxes (and single-door boarding) increase dwell time, slow trips, and mean the slow-moving fleet does less work than a faster-average-speed system could with the same number of vehicles.

On the proposed GLX, costs spiraled out of control this way:
- Slow ops on existing branches meant existing fleet couldn't cover an expanded system
- Expanded system would need more cars
- More cars would need more storage and maintenance
Result: $400m in costs: $100m of car procurement and $300m of new yards

Further:
- expected 3 or 4 car ops required fare gates
- fare gates required headhouses
- headhouses required escalators and elevators
- Stations got way more expensive (another $300m in the plan, looking like $500m with overruns)

Something like $1b is being spent because the MBTA won't switch to Proof of Payment. Switch and Save (the GLX and our transit $)

Sincerely,

I love the enthusiasm, but you are technically wrong on some points. The stations were designed as pre-payment stations, meaning there was already all-door boarding, so this would do nothing shorten trip time, increase ops, or increase average speed.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I don't see how it would save $1bil, either. Never.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I love the enthusiasm, but you are technically wrong on some points. The stations were designed as pre-payment stations, meaning there was already all-door boarding, so this would do nothing shorten trip time, increase ops, or increase average speed.

GLX are pre-payment. Arlington is saying POP on the entire surface GL. That is a HUGE operational improvement and frees up the cars needed for GLX...

 

[Arlington]

Arlington, you ought to send that letter to the Globe while this is still in the news cycle.

Thanks! I just sent a prose variant. If you see an intelligent letter on the subject, you'll know its from me.

 

[Arlington]

I love the enthusiasm, but you are technically wrong on some points. The stations were designed as pre-payment stations, meaning there was already all-door boarding, so this would do nothing shorten trip time, increase ops, or increase average speed.

While the GLX, itself, is fast, it is breathing through a coffee stirrer when sharing vehicles on the D branch. If all the rest of the D moved faster, its current fleet could get much closer to College Ave in the same scheduled run. Reallocate the savings of a faster moving B, & C and you've probably covered it all (and thrilled today's B, C, & D riders).

And so the GLX has been tasked with building a $400m yard to hold all the vehicles we've have to over-procure so they can dwell, dwell, dwell, on the B, C, and D.

And the GLX's speed comes at the huge cost of all that faregate-headhouse-elevator-Taj Mahal crap that added the first $400m (vs a "D" design...they were NOT originally pre-payment designs c.2000) way back when, and now is where probably a total of $800m in overbuilt-station costs "lives"

SLOW ops =
- over-procure cars on all branches
- over-fill yards on all branches
- over-procure cars to cover the GLX
- build a huge yard to hold all over-procured cars (Eminent domain & construction)
(Something like $100m in vehicles and $400m in yard costs)

FAREGATE ops =
- over-build stations on GLX to hold/mitigate/access the fare gates
(Something like $400m to $800m in "heavy" station costs)

A 4-car train at a "pre-paid" station on other new POP systems looks like a small shelter, a wheelchair ramp, and a fare machine. (very "D" branch) compared to big, heavy, stations we now see all over the GLX.

 

[bigeman312]

While the GLX, itself...

I see! Either I'm dense or you should clarify that in the letter you are sending. Or both.

 

[choo]

Didn't they have to move the yard after compliants from brickbottom which required som elaborate flyovers. what if they push back on the yard location?

Also, what if they make it so you can't enter the yard directly from every direction but only from the lechmere side. it would be an ops pain if something dies in somerville, but a showstopper?

 

[tangent]

GLX are pre-payment. Arlington is saying POP on the entire surface GL. That is a HUGE operational improvement and frees up the cars needed for GLX...

Why can't they just do this tomorrow at every stop past Kenmore? I mean they already have payment kiosks at these stops right? I presume they have cameras at the stops or should have. They already have toll evasion regulations on the books. Just do it now.

 

[Arlington]

Why can't they just do this tomorrow at every stop past Kenmore? I mean they already have payment kiosks at these stops right? I presume they have cameras at the stops or should have. They already have toll evasion regulations on the books. Just do it now.

Obviously they could (they even have handheld Charlie readers), but they haven't, suggesting this is a classic "It takes a Crisis" to break 90 years of fare-collection complacency.

 

[tangent]

Obviously they could (they even have handheld Charlie readers), but they haven't, suggesting this is a classic "It takes a Crisis" to break 90 years of fare-collection complacency.

It is just annoying to be stuck behind someone at a door when the trolley could just open another door. But on the other hand it seems that often the surface trolleys are mostly stopping at red lights and they have enough time to board everyone before it turns green for them. It would shave probably 3 to 5 minutes over the length of each of the lines. Maybe 5 to 7 on the infernal B line. But I'd guess the real world savings would be less. Worth doing as a test on a weekday and/or weekend. They already open all the doors for special events or late night. Worth doing, but probably not Earth shattering. But again, they should do that tomorrow... and not wait for GLX. At least run it as a test for a few weeks and compare the operating results in time saved and see if revenue remains stable.

The effect on the station designs moving from prepayment to proof of payment would be interesting, but I suspect we are talking about millions in cost savings and not tens of millions.

 

[bigeman312]

...But on the other hand it seems that often the surface trolleys are mostly stopping at red lights and they have enough time to board everyone before it turns green for them...

signal priority. Also, low hanging fruit. Even for a guy who comes in and proposes outlandish things and ignores the most tangible solutions, you miss the basics.

 

[Arlington]

^ Speaking of which, street-running signal priority on the B, C, D, & E, should be part of the crisis-resolution plan. {You're faster-to-post than I, BigE}

Faster ops are the key being able to use the existing fleet (no Type 9.5 or Type 10 procurement) and being able to use the yards we have (keep the flyovers-to-nowhere, since the steel has all been ordered, but never build the yard and use it later to send a branch to Everett.

 

[Ruairi]

Complete phase 2/2a, run track to College Ave. Use Tufts to help fund that station. Leave Gilman, Lowel and ball for the moment. Put together new designs and financing plan for those stations. Financing could include increase in Somerville property tax as well as hike in T charges. Ideally it would be gas tax but that won't happen. When there's a proper plan in place, revisit the remaining 3 stations.

 

[Arlington]

This, from Norfolk's new system, is what an elevated station looks like under POP

,
and this is what a surface station looks like

contrast that with the BIG piles of concrete STRUCTURES that the GLX is getting. Want a 4-car station? Make it longer (not heavier, taller, or more mechanicals)