Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[kjdonovan]

Letter from DePaola on the GLX homepage explains why they are still working. In short, those contracts are already paid for so the work continues. It's the next round of contracts (maintenance shed, retaining walls, stations) that are the sticky subject.
http://www.greenlineextension.org/

Fellow Green Line Supporters -

I would like to update you on the current status of the Green Line Extension project, and on the steps we are taking to move the project forward.

First and foremost, work is ongoing every day on the GLX project. Over $200 million worth of construction is currently underway in Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford, including early site work, utility relocation, and the procurement of long lead items such as steel.

24 new Green Line cars are now being manufactured in Spain, and the design process continues for the balance of the project to College Avenue.

As you have probably heard or read about, however, we are experiencing a significant and very challenging growth in the cost of constructing the Green Line Extension. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the project costs may exceed our last budget estimates by as much as $700 million to $1 billion. This setback requires changes to the project and/or additional sources of funding, as well as reconsideration of whether MassDOT and the MBTA can continue with the project.

Some of the changes to the project concept that are currently being contemplated include streamlining several of the proposed stations in order to reduce their costs and downsizing the proposed vehicle maintenance facility.

We are also seeking additional funding to add to the $2 billion in state and federal resources currently available for the GLX project. New sources of funding could include municipalities; land developers; local institutions; and foundations or philanthropies. Various ‘value capture’ mechanisms could also work well with the Green Line Extension project by allowing future increases in property values to help support the costs of constructing the project.

I ask for your patience and assistance as we work through this very challenging situation. The GLX Project Team and MassDOT/MBTA as a whole are focused on addressing the issues as quickly and as thoughtfully as possible. However, we must make sure that we completely understand the current cost-to-complete of the overall project, as well as the implications of any changes to the project design.

I want to emphasize that the Baker-Polito Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and your community leaders have all been closely involved and extremely supportive during this period. It is crucial that we approach these challenges with cooperation and collaboration. In that spirit, I urge you to share your thoughts, concerns, and suggestions at info@glxinfo.com

In addition, MassDOT has recently filed an annual report with the Department of the Environmental Protection on the status of the Green Line Extension project, as well as other transportation projects required under the State Implementation Plan. Public comments on the status report can be submitted to planning@state.ma.us

Additional information about the current status of the Green Line Extension can be found in the GLX Contract Presentation for MBTA Fiscal Management Control Board

Thank you for your support of the Green Line Extension project.

Sincerly,
Frank DePaola
MBTA General Manager

 

[Semass]

I seem to remember that the Feds were hot to trot on the CM/GC method and pushed for it with the funding agreement. Am I mistaken?

 

[cden4]

That update is very disappointing. There is absolutely no mention of controlling costs without scaling back project elements. We don't want less for more. We want what they promised for what they quoted.

 

[datadyne007]

That update is very disappointing. There is absolutely no mention of controlling costs without scaling back project elements. We don't want less for more. We want what they promised for what they quoted.

That's the general public statement. I can assure you there is a lot more going on behind the scenes.

 

[ant8904]

Regardless if there's more going on behind the scenes, it's not a good sign that the general public statement is setting up that they'll find ways to reduce the cost but by cutting out features.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I seem to remember that the Feds were hot to trot on the CM/GC method and pushed for it with the funding agreement. Am I mistaken?

No you are not mistaken. I sat through several CM/GC presentations with DOT. They were all about how this method would make the contractor take all the risk without increasing the cost (figure that one out for me).
By taking away the hard bid process you create a beauty contest where price isn't the final factor (as in a traditional bid) yet the contractor doesn't really take on the design risk (as in a Design-Build).
CM/GC makes sense if you're trying to expedite a project and don't mind if the cost goes up a bit.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Well it wouldn't be full-on BRT. They studied umpteen variations from 2005 through the New Starts submission, but the only BRT proposal that was able to gain any traction was a College Ave - Lechmere shuttle, with the Union Square spur remaining light rail. CTPS actually scored that one pretty well (but they also thought GLX-West Medford would generate more trips, than GLX-West Medford/Union Square, which seems to be an incorrect assumption, but then again, I'm ignorant of forecast modeling), but Somerville isn't going to stomach that bait-and-switch and the FMCB probably won't either as the BRT/LRV proposal had the highest ops + maint costs of the studied alternatives - less service, more expensive to operate. The FMC Board don't appear to head-in-the-sand BRT fanboys, I thought the presentation they released was pretty decent/measured.

You can't build BRT in the Lowell Line cut anyway without lighting another $300M on fire in widening out the retaining walls with more property acquisition. It's a very snug fit as-is, and unlike surface-level SL Gateway there's the tough nut to crack here of injection points into the cut (especially since if you're going that mode you're almost required to lend some of the surface bus routes a hand with ramps for branching on/off the busway).

CTPS might've scored it for scoring-it's sake. It is S.O.P. on most initial scoping rounds to score at least one obvious not-recommended alternative simply for purposes of establishing the feasibility range for the universe of alternatives. It helps trim that list down when you've quantified the place on the alternatives spectrum where overall viability drops off a cliff. But nobody ever seriously considered BRT on this alignment because it was engineering-impossible on spec. They could've been the biggest and most lobbyist-bought BRT fanboys in the world and it still wouldn't have entered the picture in this particular instance.

 

[whighlander]

The obvious solution is to just build to Union Sq. -- let that run for a decade or so and see if the promised benefits materialize

Then you can do the Design Build or CM at Risk on the remainder if desired and feasible

 

[Charlie_mta]

I agree. Build it to Union Square, and avoid building the huge expensive railyard.

That gives the biggest bang for the limited bucks right now.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I agree. Build it to Union Square, and avoid building the huge expensive railyard.

That gives the biggest bang for the limited bucks right now.

Giving back hundreds of millions in federal money at a loss and canceling many construction contracts with penalties is not "bang for buck". Nor is getting sued into oblivion for breaking a binding commitment. Pollack would not be angsting in public about how they really really need to make this work if she and Baker didn't see fiscal cure worse than the disease in outright cutting phases. There are no answers anywhere near that easy for this predicament. Unlike so many other T projects where the rug got pulled out they are way too far along here for a consequence-free cut-and-run.

They got themselves into this mess with a process that left a wide-open flank for unbounded cost overruns. They're going to have to restructure themselves out of it while still building to Union and College Ave. And they're going to have to build a carhouse with the capacity to run to College Ave., because the branches can't be fed without one. Trim station costs and trim maint facility costs: absolutely...look for places to squeeze. Lop whole elements of the build off: no...you're fooling yourself if you think it's going to be that simplistic in the real world without incurring crippling sunk cost and other collateral damage. Including collateral damage to many pols' job security.

 

[whighlander]

Giving back hundreds of millions in federal money at a loss and canceling many construction contracts with penalties is not "bang for buck". Nor is getting sued into oblivion for breaking a binding commitment. Pollack would not be angsting in public about how they really really need to make this work if she and Baker didn't see fiscal cure worse than the disease in outright cutting phases. There are no answers anywhere near that easy for this predicament. Unlike so many other T projects where the rug got pulled out they are way too far along here for a consequence-free cut-and-run.

They got themselves into this mess with a process that left a wide-open flank for unbounded cost overruns. They're going to have to restructure themselves out of it while still building to Union and College Ave. And they're going to have to build a carhouse with the capacity to run to College Ave., because the branches can't be fed without one. Trim station costs and trim maint facility costs: absolutely...look for places to squeeze. Lop whole elements of the build off: no...you're fooling yourself if you think it's going to be that simplistic in the real world without incurring crippling sunk cost and other collateral damage. Including collateral damage to many pols' job security.

That's what Political Leaders are all about -- the art of Compromise

The litigation crowd [ e.g. CLF] do no good for anyone except their egos -- that era is Over!

if there is no more money -- then there is no more money

However -- if you can craft a compromise that:

• benefits Somerville in a big way -- allowing the rebirth of Union Sq.
• lets the development of Northpoint continue with a new Lechemere coupled with a prime location for a major structure
• and most importantly can be done without damaging the T's new and important commitment to make itself work

Then Why Not?

F-Line -- beyond the paper commitments and plans -- the sunk costs are all work that is being continued until the specific subcontracts are complete -- there just won't be anything built at College Ave in the near future

 

[JeffDowntown]

There is a pretty "easy" way out of this mess and it is what should have been done day one.

Open Road tolling on 93 north and south of the Big Dig to pay for the alternative transportation mitigation efforts (which is what GLX is).

Is it politically popular, of course not, because thousands of drivers get a "free ride" (versus commuters coming from the West). But it is clearly the right thing to do.

 

[ant8904]

There is a pretty "easy" way out of this mess and it is what should have been done day one.

Open Road tolling on 93 north and south of the Big Dig to pay for the alternative transportation mitigation efforts (which is what GLX is).

Is it politically popular, of course not, because thousands of drivers get a "free ride" (versus commuters coming from the West). But it is clearly the right thing to do.

And in this context, it means letting the contractors price gouge us out of a billion (and arguably more if you assuming that if had take the Madrid Metro approach).

Both raising revenue and lobbing off features is missing that the elephant in the room is the calculations is showing can build this thing for far less (and profitably I mean). But they choose to outright bill every item 50% above estimate and we already know the estimate is high. So why are we not discussing about how to stop that instead of lobbing off feature and/or finding ways to raise revenues?

 

[JeffDowntown]

And in this context, it means letting the contractors price gouge us out of a billion (and arguably more if you assuming that if had take the Madrid Metro approach).

Both raising revenue and lobbing off features is missing that the elephant in the room is the calculations is showing can build this thing for far less (and profitably I mean). But they choose to outright bill every item 50% above estimate and we already know the estimate is high. So why are we not discussing about how to stop that instead of lobbing off feature and/or finding ways to raise revenues?

I do not disagree that there is waste and fraud.

The problem is you don't solve a $7 Billion maintenance shortfall with no extra money. Even if that number is 50% inflated, it is still a $3.5 Billion shortfall. It is not going to magically fix itself.

 

[TallIsGood]

The public knows about the 50% inflation and isn't willing to pay for any of it because they thing its all BS. Once you can get the situation under control you can explain why you really need the money. Now, it just goes to feed the beast and folks don't want to pay for that.

 

[whighlander]

I do not disagree that there is waste and fraud.

The problem is you don't solve a $7 Billion maintenance shortfall with no extra money. Even if that number is 50% inflated, it is still a $3.5 Billion shortfall. It is not going to magically fix itself.

Jeff - you should know by now -- its Political

i.e. you can get your name on a building or at least on a plaque attached to the building -- but no one can get their name on new LED lighting fixtures that would both reduce the electricity consumption and in the long run the capital and labor of replacing individual bulbs

So the obvious is not done

Similarly it was more important to have a C-level person appear at various forums around the world rather than to makes some phone calls to find-out how Chicago and other cold, wintry places seemed to be ahead of the curve in keeping their T's working

Trust me running the T is not Rocket Science or Nuclear Physics -- both of which I've done -- nor I'm fairly sure is it Brain Surgery although you need to ask Dr. Carson about that

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That's what Political Leaders are all about -- the art of Compromise

The litigation crowd [ e.g. CLF] do no good for anyone except their egos -- that era is Over!

if there is no more money -- then there is no more money

However -- if you can craft a compromise that:

• benefits Somerville in a big way -- allowing the rebirth of Union Sq.
• lets the development of Northpoint continue with a new Lechemere coupled with a prime location for a major structure
• and most importantly can be done without damaging the T's new and important commitment to make itself work

Then Why Not?

F-Line -- beyond the paper commitments and plans -- the sunk costs are all work that is being continued until the specific subcontracts are complete -- there just won't be anything built at College Ave in the near future

Speaking of the ^fooling with easy answers^ crowd...thank you for being ever-reliable at proving my point. Since you apparently earned your comptroller training staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night before the Rocketry & Nuclear Physics conference...explain in non- bullshit-WRKO talking points where the easy answers are in incurring hundreds of millions in sunk costs incurred in the act of restructuring these "paper commitments"? Preferably in more specifics than "install the same LED lighting I already damn well know exists in an ever-growing dozens of stations and [*voice trails off*] something something...MAGIC!!!"


It's too late for easy answers. Contracts are binding; very high-value contracts have steep penalties for pulling out. Federal grants are their own form of high-value contract; there are stipulations for what it has to be spent on and when, and their own steep penalties if the FTA has to take the remainder back at a loss. When contracts are made with the "litigation crowd" that other contracts will be upheld, that era is most definitely not "over".

This is not a consequence-free environment where you can walk this back and re-pick winners and losers like it ain't no thang. That's either naive or disingenuous.

 

[whighlander]

Speaking of the ^fooling with easy answers^ crowd...thank you for being ever-reliable at proving my point. Since you apparently earned your comptroller training staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night before the Rocketry & Nuclear Physics conference...explain in non- bullshit-WRKO talking points where the easy answers are in incurring hundreds of millions in sunk costs incurred in the act of restructuring these "paper commitments"? Preferably in more specifics than "install the same LED lighting I already damn well know exists in an ever-growing dozens of stations and [*voice trails off*] something something...MAGIC!!!"


It's too late for easy answers. Contracts are binding; very high-value contracts have steep penalties for pulling out. Federal grants are their own form of high-value contract; there are stipulations for what it has to be spent on and when, and their own steep penalties if the FTA has to take the remainder back at a loss. When contracts are made with the "litigation crowd" that other contracts will be upheld, that era is most definitely not "over".

This is not a consequence-free environment where you can walk this back and re-pick winners and losers like it ain't no thang. That's either naive or disingenuous.

F-Line I don't play a Business Manager on TV either -- Gov. Sargent managed to redirect the entire mechanism of funding from the Highway Trust Fund and gave us the new Orange Line [that bypassed Dudley] -- GLX is small potatoes compared to the Southwest Expressway

 

[citylover94]

That was at a different time in a different political climate and is not a fair comparison as the community was against the highway being built. In this case the community has been demanding transit along with some environmental groups and the money would just be lost or shifted to maintenance of transit that only serves them in the form of busses which has been deemed inadequate from what I have seen.

Also what will result in a rebirth of Union Square more effectively than gaining direct access to the rail rapid transit network? I'm sorry I just don't see any magical solution aside from building the GLX to Union Square. That will improve its connections to the metro are in the same way as GLX because that is the real issue right now blocking its rebirth seems to be that it seems farther away from the center than Harvard Square for example even though it is not because it is harder to get to Union Square.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line I don't play a Business Manager on TV either -- Gov. Sargent managed to redirect the entire mechanism of funding from the Highway Trust Fund and gave us the new Orange Line [that bypassed Dudley] -- GLX is small potatoes compared to the Southwest Expressway

Nice try. Completely different and completely irrelevant historical example from 45 years ago was enacted for completely different reason: immovable project opposition, not funding problems. Also entirely different funding mechanism, entirely different stage of contractual commitments, entirely different outs (trade-in of interstate funding), entirely different agency structure of the MassDOT of 1970...who you may be surprised to hear were not related in any way to the MBTA. Entirely different everything.

But you knew that. So are you going to posit a plausible theory as to why this situation has an easy answer today by citing a halfway relevant example, or is this just another exercise in emptying the brain cache of more of Cliff Claven's greatest bits? It's OK; if you got nuthin' you can always go hide again in the relative safety of the Dev forum for another 2 week spell until the coast is clear enough to reappear in the Transpo forum with the same exact off-topic deflections a couple pages later in the same exact threads. Such a regular BS'ing schedule is enormously helpful for reminding ArchBoston Nation whether or not this is a street-cleaning week, and to move the car before it gets towed.