Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[whighlander]

Quoting this post because it highlights how ridiculous it is that costs increased nearly exactly 50% across the board for the different contracts.

Scalz -- it looks as though the contractors got used to the way the T did its "business" under the old regime and they haven't yet caught on that things are now different

 

[HenryAlan]

But you still need enough mezzanine to support two elevators (down to a single, center platform).

I am curious about this. I've read similar statements a few times, now, but it seems to me that many existing station shave only one elevator per platform. Did the rule change, or is one just not considered to be a best practice?

 

[citylover94]

If you only have one elevator and it breaks there is no handicap access so current rules require elevator redundancy so that the chance of the platform becoming inaccessible is lower.

 

[ant8904]

Yeah, I've just sat back in disbelief reading all the posts talking about the Taj Mahal stations that are unnecessarily high-end. I'm not sure what renderings people are referring to, but everything I've seen seems nicer-than-basic but not by much. Maybe MBTA has succeeded in making us think something with an escalator is jaw-droppingly special.

Basically what I said in last page. We are getting price gouged. But I'm glad to read that the discussion does seem to be turning to that saying that's what's happening. Though it still seem that the direction is rather than find to a way to stop trying to pocket extra money, that they are looking to get ripped-off less and even the rest out by cutting out features.

I just don't see the contractors going to back down with guilty conscience for getting greedy, they are going to say PR lines saying it is just costing more. Our choices will be left to either continue to work with them accepting to be gouged a bit less while trying to even out by cutting stuff. Or really have to just walk away and be delayed by another 10 years.

Again, I have to iterate again that I have to wonder looking at other countries where things are done much less (or perhaps just when looking at projects done decades ago but done well), that the real change is not merely incentives and structures, but our contractors are simply more dishonest and willing to take advantage than Europe or Japan. Sure their structure is better, but I got a feeling holes still exists, and they are not taking advantage of it as our contractors. Competition is a great tool to keep people honest, but it also helps they just don't tack on costs by 50% when it is already priced much higher than it should.

 

[The EGE]

Correct. Redundant elevators are not explicitly required by law for new rapid transit stations. However, they are absolutely best practice, and you will never see the MBTA construct another station without them. The 2006 BCIL settlement lays out very strict guidelines for the MBTA, and the requirements for reliability of accessible stations essentially translates to redundant elevators everywhere.

That's a good thing. More expensive, slightly. But it means that people who need elevators to use the T (a group that's only going to grow as the Baby Boomers age) can actually use the T, and that's an incredibly important thing both practically and politically. Not to mention that the more of that group who are able to use conventional T services, the less taxpayer burden The Ride induces.

 

[Arlington]

If you only have one elevator and it breaks there is no handicap access so current rules require elevator redundancy so that the chance of the platform becoming inaccessible is lower.

...and this is why, in the name of awesome perfectness and perfect awesomeness we end up spending 2x the national average (and 3x the world average) for a light rail extension on an existing right of way.

See also the Somerville COmmunity Path from Cedar St to Lowell St, which morphed into a linear park and arts space and was delivered for 3x the price and 3x the construction time of a "path".

Slab stations are 100% ADA accessible 24/7 because they have no grade change, no fare gates, no mezzanine, no elevators. Like a second elevator, you THINK you want this stuff, but don't see that buying it utterly subverts the real goal of, you know, building a light rail line.

 

[ceo]

The CM/GC procurement method provides for an Independent Cost Estimator. The FMCB presentation mentions that that job went to Stanton Constructibility Services, but nowhere does it say anything about what their independent cost estimates might have been.

 

[The EGE]

No, it's called building a transit system that's actually functional for all users.

If you want Norfolk's light rail system with its one-car trains, uncomfortably narrow 86-foot-long platforms, and 15-minute peak headways, then be my guest and go to Norfolk. But we're not in Norfolk, we're in a densely populated city building rapid transit* for four-car trains** at 5-minute-or-less peak headways. Slab stations aren't going to cut it. Grade crossings aren't going to cut it. I want you to actually ride the D at rush hour sometime and then claim that it's going to work for a city with four times the population density of Newton.

* The GLX is rapid transit. It's not a countryside light rail line. Stop pretending otherwise. Somerville has a population density twice that of Brookline and four times that of Newton. What almost works at 5,000 people per square mile (except for the part where every D train is full by Chestnut Hill) is not going to work at 19,000 people per square mile.

** Platforms have to have four-car capacity, minimum. That's a legal issue (need to platform one two-car train pushing another two-car train) and not optional.

 

[kjdonovan]

On the ADA front, several segments of the community path double as ADA entrances and emergency egress routes. So if they are looking to save by cutting the path it would still exist in piecemeal elements (Washington St to NorthPoint and around Gilman Station). They could redesign these elements to cut costs but they'd need emergency exits anyway so it wouldn't reduce cost too much. That is, unless they figure out a way to do super cheapo platforms.

 

[Arlington]

four-car trains** at 5-minute-or-less peak headways.

Not at launch. Not on these branches. Can't we launch first? IIRC, with <2 min headways at Park Street that implies {EDIT: 6 min or 7 min headways on each of D and E basically forever} and therefore ~3 min (bidirectional) between dwells at any D or any E GLX platform...way more leisurely than Park. And additiona capacity from here comes from longer trains, not shorter headways.

Slabs can be 4 cars long or 8 cars long for all I care. My slabs are fully-compliant with length requirements, and it is easy enough to throw another ADA walkway across...or embed the whole thing in rubber as at Park Street.

Still absolutely no justification for a headhouse or grade change based on platform length, platform width, track-crossing capacity or anything. It is pure fare-collection myopia (or ediface complex). It aint transit planning as recognized anywhere else in the world.

slab stations aren't going to cut it. Grade crossings aren't going to cut it. I want you to actually ride the D at rush hour sometime and then claim that it's going to work for a city with four times the population density of Newton.

Already we're talking 3-car trains (50% more station throughput than today's Newton). Get all 6 doors open and we're at 3x todays Netwon. Get 9 doors open and we're 4.5x today's stinkin' Newton farebox boarding, but still don't need a headhouse, we just need 9 doors open!

SHow me 4 car trains, and sure, I'll lengthen my slabs to 8 cars and I *still* don't need a headhouse.

Park Street Inbound platform WORKS. It has worked for 110 years that some people have to cross the tracks with the rubber infill thingies. If Park, at <2 minute headways can survive with passengers crossing tracks at grade, so can GLX at trains every 4mins, or please show otherwise why not.

 

[The EGE]

The GL is the only practical and affordable option that works for a dense area like Somerville. The costs are high because of the shitty contractors fucking up, not because there are better options or because the stations are too nice. All this talk about alternative plans are a waste of energy. The state needs to renegotiate with the contractor or find another one who can do it cheaper.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...e-extension/2GIx45SiQdXotzJZJtmB5N/story.html
That's it.

Ah-fucking-men.

The "gold-plated-stations-are-killing-this-project" argument is bullshit in multiple ways. First off, the C and D line style stations that everyone is advocating for aren't nearly as cheap as you'd expect. None of those stations - not even the 2001-era accessibility upgrades - would get built the same way today. Platforms are too narrow, not nearly enough shelter is provided, and modern accessibility standards aren't met. (Transferring to buses at Fenway or Reservoir involves an accessible route nearly 1,000 feet long than the route with stairs. That is outright illegal.)

You still need to do drainage (a huge part of station costs), platform construction, electrical systems, communications, wayfinding signage, shelters (guess what - bus shelters don't cut it at stations with a ridership floor of 3,000 riders a day and more likely twice that), fare machines, etc. You still have to widen bridges and retaining walls, still have to provide secondary emergency egress. An actual station building is a bunch of steel and concrete. After the last century, we've gotten pretty good at building those quickly and cheaply.

We have hard numbers what stations should cost. Assembly was $50M with a 400-foot high-level platform, bridge widening, major track work, substation, massive bustitution, and two glass-covered headhouses with four elevators totaling 15,000 square feet along an active line. Orient Heights was $51M with two 350-foot high-level platforms, crew rooms, two busways, four elevators, and 20,000 square feet of covered / enclosed space along an active line. The GLX stations have single 300-foot low-level platforms, two elevators, little to no bustitution, and 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of enclosed area, generally with a bit of space between the station itself and commuter rail tracks. If the contractor is claiming that these stations are as expensive as Orient Heights or Assembly, that's an issue with the contractor and not with the station designs.

We've also known what the stations are going to look like since 2008. Only one station has substantially changed since the station design meetings then - Lechmere acquired a second headhouse for emergency egress and due to its substantial ridership. Brickbottom and Ball Square acquired inexpensive second entrances that make them substantially more attractive for a lot of walk-ups and bus riders (and reduce accessible path lengths).

 

[Arlington]

Union Sq does not need an upper and lower level. The Skokie Swift and busy LRT termini the world over simply let people walk between platforms. A lower level will suffice until GLX goes to Porter Sq decades from now.

Ball Sq, Lowell, & Gilman would also do just fine with a single level tied to a compliant Community path. You can even make 'em walk through faregates as at Old Lechmere and then cross the tracks as at Park, and hundreds of the busiest LRT stations worldwide.

I'll give you elevators at College, Washington, and Lechmere.

 

[The EGE]

It's not about platform to car throughput. It's about street to platform throughput. It doesn't matter if the entire side of the car is doors if every passengers can't get in and out of the station. Vertical circulation gets people off the platform. Multiple entrances get people off the platform. Having to wait for the train to leave before you can cross tracks doesn't.

Park Street is a major problem, not a model to follow. It's had major problems for its entire existence because it was underdesigned. Time and again they've had to make expensive, disruptive modifications because designers didn't build it with future capacity. That track crossing has not existed for 110 years (it's on Wikipedia, seriously); it's a kludge implemented because the station was so crowded in 1936 that they had to dig out an entirely new platform. (And I don't believe the track crossing was actually allowed until much more recently - quite possibly after the Winter Street Tunnel opened in 1979). Almost every northbound train at rush hour has to wait for the crowds to finish crossing before exiting the station. That's a problem. A fair percentage have to wait to enter because there are people crossing. That's a problem. Trains have to enter and exit very slowly because of the track crossings. That's a problem. If you were building Park Street from scratch, there is absolutely zero chance you'd have the crossing.

 

[Arlington]

It's not about platform to car throughput. It's about street to platform throughput.

All Lowell Line streets are on the AM-inbound side of the station. Ergo, at the AM peak crush, people are going to come from the Community Path (Gliman & Lowell) or from Boston Ave (Ball Sq) and already be standing level with and just steps away from the inbound platform, if we'd only let them. Defying all logic, headhouses instead of make them do an up-and-over-and down-and-center-board rat race. The headhouse entrance is actually longer (linearly and vertically)...moan about your crowded headhouse (by all means lets just keep spending more on it) while my slab-boarders would walk right from the curb to their AM-inbound train.

PM "rush" is always more spread out. Yes, it'll drop people on the wrong side of either their AM track (if center platform) or on the wrong side of both tracks (if side platform) but then they only have to really cross the inbound track (which will be running empty-ish trains and who cares if that inbound-PM-train has to stutter a little as it pulls into the station? Its empty and nobody's getting on.

Your headhouses often actually suck at curb-to-platform efficiency. Dropped at the plaza on Boston Ave, users of Ball Sq Headhouse have to get themselves 20' up into the air, get through a faregate and back down 20'.

Same at Union: Instead of faregates at the dropoff plaza, they've got to climb to overpass height, do their faregates and climb back down, all to pass over a terminal stub, that they could better/easier just walk across the end of?

 

[The EGE]

Union Sq does not need an upper and lower level. The Skokie Swift and busy LRT termini the world over simply let people walk between platforms. A lower level will suffice until GLX goes to Porter Sq decades from now.

Ball Sq, Lowell, & Gilman would also do just fine with a single level tied to a compliant Community path. You can even make 'em walk through faregates as at Old Lechmere and then cross the tracks as at Park, and hundreds of the busiest LRT stations worldwide.

I'll give you elevators at College, Washington, and Lechmere.

Great, let's discourage ridership from the south by making the walking distance substantially longer. That's exactly what the underserved population south of Union Square wants.

The grade-separated right of way means that a lot of these stations are next to bridges that are difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to fully cross due to grades. The main entrances to Union and Ball stations solve that problem - the west end of Broadway bridge and the north end of Prospect are brutally steep. Relegating those in wheelchairs to second-class citizens doesn't.

At none of those three stations is the community path at platform level. It runs on top of the retaining wall at Gilman Square to substantially reduce the cost of widening the trench an extra eight feet. At Lowell Street the path is on the complete opposite side of Maxwell's Green, and it doesn't run anywhere near Ball Square.

 

[The EGE]

Your headhouses often actually suck at curb-to-platform efficiency. Dropped at the plaza on Boston Ave, users of Ball Sq Headhouse have to get themselves 20' up into the air, get through a faregate and back down 20'.

Same at Union: Instead of faregates at the dropoff plaza, they've got to climb to overpass height, do their faregates and climb back down, all to pass over a terminal stub, that they could better/easier just walk across the end of?

Have you even looked at the current station designs? Union Square has a flat route from the platform to the off-street dropoff area. The Broadway entrance to Ball Square is at mezzanine level and requires only one vertical transfer.

 

[Arlington]

Great, let's discourage ridership from the south by making the walking distance substantially longer. That's exactly what the underserved population south of Union Square wants.

Sorry, but I can't afford to kiss (with $20m worth of concrete) the a** of every abutter, right now, please call back later.

Or let the landowners there put up the TIF tax $ to fund that entrance. All over WMATA they built 1 entrance for launch, and left knockouts in the concrete for later when they'd have the $ for another one. Leave knockouts at Union for Porter's tracks and South's entrance (or let them pay for it). Same for Ball Sq.

 

[Arlington]

Have you even looked at the current station designs? Union Square has a flat route from the platform to the off-street dropoff area.

Perfect. So delete the mezzanine {it results in a huge structure} and let TIF financing by others on the South side finance it (now or future or as part of going to Porter Sq)

The Broadway entrance to Ball Square is aut mezzanine level and requires only one vertical transfer.

But that's because you've assumed a $20m mezzanine. Early plans at Ball had a full set of curb/bus amenities along Boston Ave (which, in my world, would have also obviated the need for a headhouse). But the designers fell it love with their center platforms and grade changes and, yeah, if all you've got is a headhouse (and $20m to burn) the entrance ends up on Broadway. If your focus is on value for money, you have a slabs station with a Boston Ave entrance on the AM side which works better-or-equal for AM throughput than a Broadway entrance.

 

[ceo]

At Ball Square, you already have to provide a way to get from the Boston Ave level to the outbound platform. The bridge is too steep to be ADA-compliant and the street geometry makes it impossible to make it that way. And from the bridge level you need to provide a compliant way to get to the platform. So right there you cannot avoid two sets of redundant elevators. Sure, you could provide an inbound side platform with no elevation change, but since you already have to build all that other stuff, it would just add to the expense without a whole lot of benefit.
And as I and others have said: a completely level station that requires crossing the inbound tracks at grade is not an option. At the expected ridership levels, it would be an operational and safety nightmare.
(In fact, because they have to rebuild the bridge, and the longer span means the approaches will be even steeper, the street-to-mezzanine elevators are necessary to provide an ADA-compliant path over the bridge. Which won't help people much when the station is closed, but I guess that was fine.)

 

[Arlington]

Crossing the inbound tracks to get the outbound tracks can be fully ADA compliant, waaay faster from Boston Ave, and, with rubber inserts, has essentially unlimited capacity. It is not a safety or operational imperative to avoid track crossing. All trains are going to stop at the station all the time. Stopping slightly short for a few seconds to allow for stragglers crossing the tracks is insignificant, particularly when nearly-all track-crossers don't conflict with the rush-hour direction (nobody's going to cross at Ball so they can board for Tufts and near-nobody will go for MVP/16...which we can't afford because the next 5 years of CMAQ is being spent on GLX bloat)

And, sure, Park Street Inbound is too busy (but fully compliant and safe), but Ball Sq will have 1/4 the number of trains and easily 1/20th the number of users as Park. I'll concede that Park works "barely" if you'll concede that Ball Sq is a full order of magnitude less busy and always will be (plus Ball will be flat and straight)

A walk to/from Boston Ave is faster & cheaper with a slab station. Yes, folks from Broadway would have to walk around to use it, but with your $20m mezzanine folks from Boston Ave will have to walk around to use *that* (will take considerably longer path to their train every day, forever).

I'd say they're operationally equal (somebody is inconvenienced and somebody elese moves much faster) but a flat Boston Ave entrance saves all that headhouse and two elelvators and stairs.

I wish I could capture in a few words the principles of TRIZ innovation, but a big part of it is trimming--getting better performance from less stuff (and lower costs). The GLX is a perfect example of how something just gets heavier and more complicated to compensate for the fact that it was heavy and complicated to begin with. An out of control spiral like a rocket with bigger fuel tanks, to hold more fuel, to power bigger engines, to lift the weight of extra fuel and tanks that powers bigger engines that...