Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

whighlander said:
Back when this was originally proposed it was supposed to cost $1B total
Click to expand...
Worse. $600M (when it assumed D-Branch style stops)

The big blunder was letting Brickbottom move the storage yard from owned land to yet-to-be-eminent-domained land. A $400m hit. We shoulda just bought them all new condos or told them to visit Chestnut Hill, Brookline and give us an estimate for the "damages" suffered by communities around trolley-storage yards.

But at this point, the project is a well-though out whole, and about $600m of the overrun is stations to accommodate fare gates and 4-car trains...a victim of its likely super success. No time to trim, just get it done.
 
whighlander said:
No comments about the 3 Card Monty being played by Feds and Commonwealth

It looks as though the current cost estimate is now $2.4B the Fed's are pledging $1.0B subject to the Commonwealth coming up with $1.4B
Click to expand...
I've been bringing it up. I'm pretty annoyed that the price jumped like that. It's a little ridiculous.

However, the GLX is such a strong project that even at the new price it's still relatively cost-effective on the scale of American transit projects. Although... that's a low bar to clear.

lexicon506 said:
Well, good thing no one is taking your suggestions!

I can think of no better use of $2.4b than bringing real transit to the densest community in New England. Longer we wait, the more expensive it gets.
Click to expand...

That reminds me: Another funny thing at the announcement is that Capuano went off on how Somerville was the most densely populated area in the world!

In the next sentence I think he backed off that and said "New England."

But maybe they're one and the same to him.
 
Matthew said:
Somerville was the most densely populated area in the world!
In the next sentence I think he backed off that and said "New England."
Click to expand...

The factoid about Somerville's density was always a trick of municipal boundaries. Look at Cambridge: move the parks/cemeteries/reservoir west of Fresh Pond Parkway into Belmont and it is easily the denser city.

Now the density line has changed from just being a well-worn cliche to become a bit of a double-edged sword.

For every politician or developer who mention it when calling for more infrastructure, there's a NIMBY that cites it as a reason to minimize development in growth areas like Union, Davis, Assembly: "We're already the DENSEST city in the known universe... parking! traffic! etc!"

Fortunately Curtatone has his head on straight and put together some great development plans with fantastic people behind them (Jeff Speck, MIT and HKS profs).

But now that the choo-choos are close to arriving, the whole density thing risks becoming a liability.
 
Yeah, I agree, Somerville's density isn't that high when viewed on a block-by-block basis. There's no area of urban-level concentration, either, like Comm Ave has in Boston. The ridership modeling is based on real data though and is still quite strong. And since the service will deliver high-frequency, quality transit, I have every reason to believe that the projections will be met and exceeded, as with many recent, well-executed, light rail projects.

It was a funny moment though.
 
kjdonovan said:
Important meeting tonight on plans to rework the roads in Union. For a while they've been looking to make Prospect and Webster 2-way, breaking up the crush of one-way traffic that currently is forced through the middle of the square.

http://www.somervillebydesign.com/upcoming-meeting-union-square-january-8-2015/
Click to expand...

This cannot happen soon enough. Those one-ways are circuitous and cause unnecessary additional congestion during peak times and are effectively drag strips off-peak.
 
I'm posting this from the Red-Blue to here and responding to it:
whighlander said:
The reality is that [Given Gov Baker's estimate of a $765m shortfall] there is no money available now to proceed with any project not already at the stage of say Government Center Station

Even Green Line to Medford is at least on hold for a while -- the Fed's require more than 50% and that will not materialize for at least a couple more years[...]The result is that there will be no funds for anything new until at least the FY 2017 budget is approved
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the way it works. The whole idea of the Fed ~$1b grant (and something like $500m in contingency) is that the whole financing package is locked in *before* the Feds sign a FFGA, precisely so that grantees don't have the latitude to tie up Fed grant-making authority and then let let cost-overruns or State funding crises screw up the agreed project.
 
Arlington said:
I'm posting this from the Red-Blue to here and responding to it:

I don't think that's the way it works. The whole idea of the Fed ~$1b grant (and something like $500m in contingency) is that the whole financing package is locked in *before* the Feds sign a FFGA, precisely so that grantees don't have the latitude to tie up Fed grant-making authority and then let let cost-overruns or State funding crises screw up the agreed project.
Click to expand...

Arlington -- even the GLX is constrained by the matching of Fed with Commonwealth funds -- of course the Commonwealth -- through authorization by the Legislature could agree to provide its funds through a Bond issue

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442453618&month=&year=
Major Federal Funding Commitment For Green Line Extension Is Celebrated

SOMERVILLE – Monday, January 5, 2015 – Governor Deval Patrick was joined by U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx today as he announced a $996 million federal grant agreement to extend the MBTA Green Line light rail service from East Cambridge to Somerville and Medford....Secretary Foxx and Acting Federal Transit Administrator Therese McMillan participated in a ceremony to commit the funds with Governor Patrick, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Congressman Michael Capuano, MassDOT Acting Secretary Frank DePaola, MBTA General Manager Dr. Beverly Scott and other federal, state and local officials.....

“Today’s funding commitment brings the GLX another step closer to reality," said Governor Patrick.....

"Bringing light rail to Somerville and Medford will connect residents to work, education and other opportunities while making it easier than ever to access downtown Boston," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "We are proud to support projects like this-and recognize the need to do more. We are committed to working with Congress to find bipartisan solutions that will help the Boston region and communities across the U.S. continue to invest in and enhance their transportation systems in the years ahead."

The U.S. Department of Transportation will contribute approximately $996 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grant Program (New Starts) funding over the course of the $2.3 billion project with funds from the Commonwealth covering the remainder.
Click to expand...

The key is the phrase " of the $2.3 billion project with funds from the Commonwealth covering the remainder " == $1.4B or about 60% from the Commonwealth's taxpayers

Now some $765M will be cut from existing budgets -- I just don't think there's much chance in the near term --- almost 2X the amount which needs to be cut in the remainder of this FY's budget to be encumbered by issuing bonds for the GLX
 
whighlander said:
The key is the phrase " of the $2.3 billion project with funds from the Commonwealth covering the remainder " == $1.4B or about 60% from the Commonwealth's taxpayers

Now some $765M will be cut from existing budgets -- I just don't think there's much chance in the near term --- almost 2X the amount which needs to be cut in the remainder of this FY's budget to be encumbered by issuing bonds for the GLX
Click to expand...

The impact of the GLX is spread between now and 2021. The FFGA specifies "federal participation for the project will be $996,121,000. The Commonwealth’s participation will be $996,122,000 plus finance charges, currently estimated to be $305.4 Million." So those finance charge don't "hit" until later. Also the big nuts are Phases 3 (storage yard) and Phase 4 (4 stations from Gilman/Lowell/Ball/College), not Phase 2, (Lechmere, Union, Brickbottom)

If the State's $996m were spread evenly from Feb 2015 to Feb 2021, that's $166m/year (with the finance charges being "back-loaded" after the money's spent and while the bonds are paid down).

I just don't see them solving the $765m (which may be inflated by Baker as much as Deval's $360 under-stated it), or whatever by taking a whole year from the GLX.
 
Whighlander, Baker's issue is balancing the Commonwealth's operating budget. The GLX is a capital project and as such it is not an apples to apples discussion. Not sure what the specific accounting treatment is, but the impact of any depreciation/amortization would have to be pretty small or nonexistent based on the dollar amount that has been authorized/spent so far.
 
Baker just named Stephanie Pollock - who was with the CLF during the period they sued the state - as Secretary of Transportation. She is the last person who would authorize any further delay to the project.
 
omaja said:
Whighlander, Baker's issue is balancing the Commonwealth's operating budget. The GLX is a capital project and as such it is not an apples to apples discussion. Not sure what the specific accounting treatment is, but the impact of any depreciation/amortization would have to be pretty small or nonexistent based on the dollar amount that has been authorized/spent so far.
Click to expand...

Omaja -- There is a 5 year Capital Investment Plan which governs the spending on capital projects -- and since the dominant capital spending is by the now unified DOT -- there is a whole lot of documents including:
  • 2015 Boston Region MPO Transportation Improvement Program
    http://www.ctps.org/Drupal/data/pdf/plans/TIP/FFYs_2015_2018_TIP_Amend_One_Clean.pdf
  • FY2014 to FY2018 MASSDOT CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
    http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/cip_FY14_FY18.pdf
    This document presents the first comprehensive Capital Investment Program (CIP) for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), building on the original 2009 Highway Division Capital Investment Program. Prior capital investment plans often focused on a certain asset (e.g. trains or bridges) or only on funding source (e.g. tolls or state bond proceeds). Covering state fiscal years 2014 to 2018, this CIP is a fiscally constrained
    compendium of all infrastructure-related spending programmed by department. In other words, this represents the allocation of estimated state and federal revenues for the reconstruction, maintenance and development of our statewide highways, bicycle
    and pedestrian paths, bridges, local roads, bus and rail networks and airports for the next five state fiscal years.
    Click to expand...
Two notes:
  • 1) Massport is not completely included
  • 2) The Commonwealth is constitutionally prohibited from running a deficit in its operating budget at the end of each fiscal year

However, despite the intentions of the DOT and the Legislature -- the total amount of bonding which can be issued by the Commonwealth is limited by its impact on the unified operating budget [aka the Budget] which includes any and all carrying charges on the Commonwealth's indebtedness.

So its complicated -- with the $765M operating deficit now in January -- and the Commonwealth's Fiscal Year ending in June -- the entire CFY14 [Commonwealth FY14] budget is back in play. When the deficit was about half [$350M] -- Gov Patrick was suggesting hitting on the transfer payments to the cities and towns for the majority of the deficit.

Gov. Baker has said he will not hit on the transfers to the cities and towns -- but the rest is on the table -- that would include any impact of borrowing on the budget.

So -- its complicated
 
Seems like you are essentially validating my point in a rather roundabout way. In so many words: the amount in the capital budget does not have a 1:1 impact on the operating budget. So not only would it be an unwise decision from an infrastructure investment standpoint to delay GLX, it's not going to have anywhere near the type of impact you think it would in terms of solving the deficit this year.
 
I attended a town hall meeting with Tufts President Anthony Monaco this morning and he mentioned that the university has lined up "a very generous donor" and is looking to build an air rights building over the planned Green Line station at College Ave. He also mentioned the possibility of a pedestrian walkway from the air rights building across Boston Ave in order to take some foot traffic out of that intersection.
 
JumboBuc said:
I attended a town hall meeting with Tufts President Anthony Monaco this morning and he mentioned that the university has lined up "a very generous donor" and is looking to build an air rights building over the planned Green Line station at College Ave. He also mentioned the possibility of a pedestrian walkway from the air rights building across Boston Ave in order to take some foot traffic out of that intersection.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Did he say on top of the *station* or merely on air rights over the tracks? Something to give Boston Ave a streetscape on both sides of the street between College Ave and Winthrop St would be most welcome. The current parking (structured and hill terraced) on the uphill side and scary rail trench on the downhill side make Boston Ave the weakest part of all of Tufts' campus.

I'd say the students are *needed* at street level to give that stretch of Boston Ave life.

Frankly, pedestrian overpasses (skywalks) never work. You need a plaza, like Harvard has between the Yard and the Science buildings. In this case, an skywalk would just further fragment all the crazy, mismatched levels (hilltop vs Boston Ave vs athletic fields/buildings) that Tufts has.

Tufts has the problem that a lot of hilltop/hillside campuses have: academic buildings "up high" and all the transportation (streets and rail and retail) "down in the valley" and no easy way to tie them together.
 
Arlington said:
Very interesting. Did he say on top of the *station* or merely on air rights over the tracks? Something to give Boston Ave a streetscape on both sides of the street between College Ave and Winthrop St would be most welcome. The current parking (structured and hill terraced) on the uphill side and scary rail trench on the downhill side make Boston Ave the weakest part of all of Tufts' campus.

I'd say the students are *needed* at street level to give that stretch of Boston Ave life.

Frankly, pedestrian overpasses (skywalks) never work. You need a plaza, like Harvard has between the Yard and the Science buildings. In this case, an skywalk would just further fragment all the crazy, mismatched levels (hilltop vs Boston Ave vs athletic fields/buildings) that Tufts has.

Tufts has the problem that a lot of hilltop/hillside campuses have: academic buildings "up high" and all the transportation (streets and rail and retail) "down in the valley" and no easy way to tie them together.
Click to expand...

He said "over the station", but I'm not sure how literally we should take that. The building could be over some of the platforms but not over the head house itself.

I'm with you that having more people and ground-floor action on Boston Ave would help the area, but I also see where the university is coming from in considering a skywalk. The intersection of College and Boston Avenues is a disaster already, and adding the Green Line station to the mix won't help that. It's not at all clear to motorists in the intersection what's going on and who has the right of way so every few minutes someone ends up running a red. Combine that with it being a fairly major pedestrian crossing on the Tufts campus and I am surprised that more students don't regularly get hit by cars. When crossing with the signal I always need to always keep a lookout, and I've seen already seen two accidents there this semester (one with a Medford police car) on my way to the gym. The first thing they need to do, at a bare minimum, is adjust the timing at that light.

But yeah, Boston Ave definitely needs more pedestrian life west of College Ave. Boston from College to Winthrop needs to be narrowed (it's much wider than it should be) and the sidewalks (especially on the north side) need to be widened. Tufts is currently building a new energy plant just east of Dowling Hall (the parking garage) that will abut the street and have large windows were passersby can look in and observe the heat/generation/cooling equipment. I wouldn't be surprised to see development replace the terraced parking in the future. I think some air rights development (maybe with ground floor retail?) the length of the north side of Boston Ave from Nick's Pizza to College Ave would do wonders for that stretch, even if it includes a skywalk for direct connection to the hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top