Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[Arlington]

What we can say is that GLX will power low-emissions growth in Som/Med, and easy access to high-wage employment centers.

We cannot say that it will solve any existing road or pollution problems, except that some will be given a fast, clean alternative to those road problems (which will remain).

The GLX transit studies do project reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The ridership projections are not all transit users today. Whether you believe them or not, the projected reduction is more than 25,000 vehicle miles PER DAY. Will that free flow traffic, I do not know, but it is a lot of travel on the major arteries through Medford and Somerville not just I-93, but also 16, 28, 38, probably even 99 in Charlestown... And backup on the surface roads contribute to I-93 backups (they are the bail-out routes).

http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/about.html

Matthew's point about induced demand trumps this. If it becomes known that traffic volumes are down and average speeds are up, commuters form Woburn, Stoneham, and Melrose will quickly discover (via Waze/GMaps/AMaps/GPS) that they can drive more often and be happier if they take a shortcut on 16, 60, or 99 etc. [We saw the EXACT same thing when the Big Dig opened...once AssemblySq-SouthBay was decongested, it was suddenly worth congesting I-93 between Assembly and Roosevelt Circle (Fellsway West /Medford) to "wait in line" for your chance to use the "less congested" Central Artery. In effect, it moved the jam northward]

Induced demand will be a mix of people discovering new, faster/less stressful routes and people, say, joining a gym or dance class choosing a private school or new job (or Wegmans!) slightly further from their house.

The GLX's road benefits, instead of accruing to local Medford/Somerville drivers, will mostly accrue to Winchester-Woburn-Stoneham-Malden-Melrose drivers who are given a new "back way" to get places by cutting through Som/Med/Camb roads that commuters are no longer using.

Given this, it is folly to say that the GLX is good for reducing VMT or meaningfully reducing pollution (and the CLF knows this and so do the Courts)

In fact, [the car fleet] now pollutes something like 1/5 to 1/10th what they did when the Big Dig settlement was signed, so even doubling traffic still halves or fifths the pollution, thanks to the retirement of wave after wave of dirty cars (pre-1980 (guzzlers), pre-1989 (dirty sippers), which would have been most cars back then, and then 1989-1994, then 1994-1999, and now even the 1999-2003 are starting to be retired)


If the goal of the GLX was x% reduction in pollution, the reality is that it has already been achieved--and more--thanks to engine technology (and you could probably double VMT through the GLX area and still be below the original emissions goals)

You can basically draw a chart like this for any known pollutant/irritant (VOCs are "gas fumes" that cause smog, but you can do it with NOx, CO2, or particulates and it looks about the same) Source:US EPA

 

[Mongo]

Matthew's point about induced demand trumps this. If it becomes known that traffic volumes are down and average speeds are up, commuters form Woburn, Stoneham, and Melrose will quickly discover (via Waze/GMaps/AMaps/GPS) that they can drive more often and be happier if they take a shortcut on 16, 60, or 99 etc. [We saw the EXACT same thing when the Big Dig opened...once AssemblySq-SouthBay was decongested, it was suddenly worth congesting I-93 between Assembly and Roosevelt Circle (Fellsway West /Medford) to "wait in line" for your chance to use the "less congested" Central Artery. In effect, it moved the jam northward]

Induced demand will be a mix of people discovering new, faster/less stressful routes and people, say, joining a gym or dance class choosing a private school or new job (or Wegmans!) slightly further from their house.

The GLX's road benefits, instead of accruing to local Medford/Somerville drivers, will mostly accrue to Winchester-Woburn-Stoneham-Malden-Melrose drivers who are given a new "back way" to get places by cutting through Som/Med/Camb roads that commuters are no longer using.

Given this, it is folly to say that the GLX is good for reducing VMT or meaningfully reducing pollution (and the CLF knows this and so do the Courts)

In fact, [the car fleet] now pollutes something like 1/5 to 1/10th what they did when the Big Dig settlement was signed, so even doubling traffic still halves or fifths the pollution. If the goal of the GLX was x% reduction in pollution, the reality is that it has already been achieved--and more--thanks to engine technology (and you could probably double VMT through the GLX area and still be below the original emissions goals)

You can basically draw a chart like this for any known pollutant/irritant (VOCs are "gas fumes" that cause smog, but you can do it with NOx, CO2, or particulates and it looks about the same) Source:US EPA

What we can say is that it will power low-emissions growth in Som/Med.

Not to take away from your point, vehicle emissions have dropped quite a bit, but whoever made that graph should be fired. It isn't really a meaningful representation of emissions since the left axis is total miles traveled and the right is grams/mile.

The pollution line should be total emissions, which would still be a relatively flat line but wouldn't be as deceiving as this is.

 

[Arlington]

The pollution line should be total emissions, which would still be a relatively flat line but wouldn't be as deceiving as this is.

No, it wouldn't be "relatively flat", it would be down by a factor of 10x
(and I'm sure there's a better graph I could have grabbed) but a little visual multiplication would show that over the time in question (since the CLF deal to the GLX's projected opening)

in 1990 4.0g/mi x 1.5Tmi = 6Tgrams of VOC
in 2000 2.0g/mi x 2.5Tmi = 5Tgrams of VOC
in 2010 0.5g/mi x 3.0Tmi = 1.5Tgrams of VOC
by 2020 0.2g/mi x 3.5Tmi = 0.7Tgrams of VOC

Since "the deal" was done on Big Dig pollution, US vehicle emissions pollution is down by a factor of 10x--Detroit and Washington made Beacon Hill near-irrelevant in delivering pollution reductions.

That's because growth in VMT has been linear ("only" doubling) and emissions reductions has been logarithmic (now 1/20th of what it was).

If you say that "traffic" on I-93 has grown by [33%] (an added lane), then its local emissions would be down to 0.05 x 1.33 = 1/15th what they were when the CLF deal was signed (or less, due to the Big Dig's reduction in "sitting" congestion)

 

[fattony]

I don't think the reductions in CO2 have been as dramatic as for other pollutants. Certainly there hasn't been a 10x reduction in CO2 emitted by automobiles in the US.

 

[Arlington]

I don't think the reductions in CO2 have been as dramatic as for other pollutants. Certainly there hasn't been a 10x reduction in CO2 emitted by automobiles in the US.

CO2 was not an issue in the 1990 deal, it was "air quality" (NOx, VOC, and particulates) and "smog" and "asthma"

I'd even count myself as a "car hater" but all the old "air quality" reasons are not an intellectually honest reason for going after cars (vs, say, buildings burning oil for heat) , and retro-justifying the otherwise-irrelevant CLF deal [with new CO2 justifications] strikes me as moving the goalposts.

And, frankly, if it is CO2 reduction you're after (it is for me!) induced demand pretty much ensures that you're not going to get it with the GLX (particularly if it just moves people off of clean buses onto clean trains while reduced Somerville car trips are replaced 1-for-1 by Malden and Stoneham drivers )

A couple of rounds of trade-your-guzzler-for-a-prius/Leaf (or 10-years of free T pass) targeted at economic justice communities (free ZipCar & T Pass for St Polycarp's) would be way more cost-effective at reducing CO2 (this is why Stephanie Pollack is so right about free T passes for low income commuters...they lack the capital to upgrade to new/efficient cars)

 

[Matthew]

While emissions have vastly improved over the past 30 years -- and I am thankful for that, make no mistake -- our understanding of the effect that air pollutants have on the body has also improved.

And the news is not good. (see, for example, this review). If anything, we seem to be finding more and more reasons to be concerned about smaller and smaller levels of pollution.

 

[FK4]

Matthew, it always baffles me that this side of the argument for better emissions standards is never pursued in any larger-audience debates... climate change, fine. Let the morons deny it. But the fact that we have to BREATHE all this crap is another thing altogether, and should be trumpeted by politicians more loudly. The human health consequences of urban pollution - even in smaller doses - are extraordinary.

 

[whighlander]

Matthew, it always baffles me that this side of the argument for better emissions standards is never pursued in any larger-audience debates... climate change, fine. Let the morons deny it. But the fact that we have to BREATHE all this crap is another thing altogether, and should be trumpeted by politicians more loudly. The human health consequences of urban pollution - even in smaller doses - are extraordinary.

FK4 -- yes when we are talking China's Urban Mega-growth

However, thanks to modern automotive technology -- pollution due to passenger vehicles continues to decline as the usage increases

• first because of numbers the highly improved efficiency of the gasoline engine with computer controlled fuel injection and electronic ignition timing
• reduced vehicle weight hence reduced fuel consumption per mile driven
• hybrids taking advantage of regenerative braking
• now beginning to be quite a few pollution source location shifting full electric vehicles

There are some further reductions in emissions in places such as Logan by replacing ordinary diesel powered buses with CNG-diesels

So -- no you can't really sell GLX on emissions effects other than the source shifting of diesel fumes for central generation

If you are going to make a successful case for GLX it needs to be done on the basis of improved commutes for the people currently taking the bus to the train or possibly even the bus to the place of work

 

[bigeman312]

I think the best justification is geometric efficiency that encouraging better land-use, enables denser development, and ultimately an improved quality-of-life for those living in Somerville and Medford.

 

[Ruairi]

Just some thoughts on how the costs could be lowered.

Only move Lechmere station if it's privately funded.
Combine the lowering of McGrath highway project with new street rails heading north along the new 28. Joining existing track before Gilman sq.
Scrap Washington st. and postpone union spur stations and put a new street level station at the junction of Washington and Medford st. on the new 28 (less than a 5 min walk from the center of union)
Wait for new development in Union and Boynton yards to fund new spur and station in Union at prospect st.

Not sure if there's funding for the McGrath project that could be combined with the GLX funding. It seems mad that there are two transport projects running pretty much parallel, when they could be combined. Probably a million reasons that this can't be done but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[bigeman312]

Only move Lechmere station if it's privately funded.

Impossible. How to you pull this off physically? There's the O'Brien Highway and some buildings between the current Lechmere Station and the new GLX ROW.

Unless you're recommending not having a Lechmere stop on the new GLX, in which case I disagree wholeheartedly.

Combine the lowering of McGrath highway project with new street rails heading north along the new 28. Joining existing track before Gilman sq.

This won't save money. You are proposing creating a new ROW where an elevated highway is, rather than using an existing, already cleared, at-grade, meant-for-rails ROW. This would increase cost.

 

[whighlander]

Just some thoughts on how the costs could be lowered.

Only move Lechmere station if it's privately funded.
Combine the lowering of McGrath highway project with new street rails heading north along the new 28. Joining existing track before Gilman sq.
Scrap Washington st. and postpone union spur stations and put a new street level station at the junction of Washington and Medford st. on the new 28 (less than a 5 min walk from the center of union)
Wait for new development in Union and Boynton yards to fund new spur and station in Union at prospect st.

Not sure if there's funding for the McGrath project that could be combined with the GLX funding. It seems mad that there are two transport projects running pretty much parallel, when they could be combined. Probably a million reasons that this can't be done but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

No -- not even remotely feasible

The only approach that makes any sense is:

• Build the New Leechmere re-funded in part by sale of the old Lechmere land for a tower
• finish the new connector from the New Lechmere to the CR rail cut
• build the connector from the viaduct to the New Lechmere
• Open new Lechmere
• tear down old Lechmere
• Build Union Square [with extended provision for buses]
• finish the connection to Union Sq with provision for a future Station at Washington St.
• Open the Union Sq. GLX
• let development proceed and revisit about 2025

a bit late for the the original timetable but immently do-able for a reasonable price

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Just some thoughts on how the costs could be lowered.

Only move Lechmere station if it's privately funded.

The only approach that makes any sense is:

• Build the New Leechmere re-funded in part by sale of the old Lechmere land for a tower

You guys realize that Lechmere WAS land-swapped across the street in the flurry of Northpoint deals so the Northpoint developers could build something tall on the old station land? There is a public-private deal spurring development of that station.

 

[Ruairi]

No -- not even remotely feasible

The only approach that makes any sense is:

• Build the New Leechmere re-funded in part by sale of the old Lechmere land for a tower
• finish the new connector from the New Lechmere to the CR rail cut
• build the connector from the viaduct to the New Lechmere
• Open new Lechmere
• tear down old Lechmere
• Build Union Square [with extended provision for buses]
• finish the connection to Union Sq with provision for a future Station at Washington St.
• Open the Union Sq. GLX
• let development proceed and revisit about 2025

a bit late for the the original timetable but immently do-able for a reasonable price

So your solution results in one new station out of 6 being constructed and opened?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Yes, the land-swap deal at Lechmere is long done and accounted for in the current budget. No money to be gained from that.

Also, the Lechmere steel viaduct has to be replaced to support 3 and eventually 4 car trains on this part of the GL (and before it falls down!)

 

[Ruairi]

You guys realize that Lechmere WAS land-swapped across the street in the flurry of Northpoint deals so the Northpoint developers could build something tall on the old station land? There is a public-private deal spurring development of that station.

Is the North Point developer going to fully fund the construction of the new Lechmere? Because if not, why not leave it where it is? Seems like everything is up for negotiation at this point.

 

[Texasian]

Is the North Point developer going to fully fund the construction of the new Lechmere? Because if not, why not leave it where it is? Seems like everything is up for negotiation at this point.

More street running rail on the north end of the system would just serve to make the entire Green Line worse. Could you imagine? Half of the D and E lines completely borked due to an accident? No thanks, not a solution at all. Build it right even if its stripped down, but don't build something that could fuck over the entire system.

 

[Arlington]

Is the North Point developer going to fully fund the construction of the new Lechmere?

No, IIRC, the Lechmere deal was a bit of a ripoff (requiring extended closure of Lechmere & Science park during construction of the new station and not being much more than a parcel-swap). But the T wanted a fast deal to assure it had assembled all the parcels it needed. But the ripoff is that in order to take possession on the North Point side, it has to immediately close and turn over the current Lechmere Station (instead of, say, getting a 1-year tenancy on the old site while it builds on the new site)

Seems like everything is up for negotiation at this point.

Not parcel acquisition. Spiraling land costs were not the problem here (as they were with the Big Dig's eminent domain disaster(s)) I think the most you'd see is the T proposing a more bare bones station and asking North Point for more amenities. Or trying to shed some of the parking spots and bus loop land (It is hard to see the 80s-series buses needing that much space in the long run)

...why not leave it where it is?...

Because viaducts crossing the street and back again would have been more expensive than building them on the North Point side, and it would probably have either been more expensive (to modify a "live" station) or required an even longer closure to build. One way or another, the DOT could not have easily acquired the land on the North Point side of the road that it needs to be lined up with the ROW to the rest of the GLX (so they might as well move the station there too)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is the North Point developer going to fully fund the construction of the new Lechmere? Because if not, why not leave it where it is? Seems like everything is up for negotiation at this point.

Because that land swap was consumated in 2008 with Pan Am (a.k.a. the Northpoint owners). The T does not own the land under current Lechmere station anymore. There is no "leave as is" option. They have an easement with no firm time limit for expiration, and they have to GTFO out and move across the street on the land they were deeded in the swap. They'd have to do that even if the whole project past Lechmere was canceled.

The bundle of land swaps included all the Innerbelt land the project is cannibalizing for ROW and maint facility, and the state got a steal on it because it lumped in some fringe land for Assembly Square and redevelopable parcels as far away as downtown Lowell as extras in the package. The deal is NOT paying for the construction expenses, but is going to generate lots of property tax revenue for the state when that new building gets built. And as a condition of the swap, Pan Am/Northpoint is also footing the bill for the entire streetscaping of Lechmere Square that will happen after the viaduct is torn down and the land is prepped for build.



It is an extremely simplistic definition of what "public-private" is if you're taking the view that all is lost if private land developers aren't writing the T blank checks for the brick, mortar, and tracks. Stop looking for easy answers to not pay for this project. They don't exist in the real world. If they existed in the real world, the politicians and bureaucrats tasked with navigating this minefield would've already pulled back instead of diving in knee-deep like their livelihoods depend on it. There's no blank checks from private enterprise that'll build the transportation infrastructure, and there is no "build the Union Branch then fuck off" option that doesn't line up every top-level politician touched by this project up against the wall to get taken out in their next reelection. The 'fix', such that it is, is going to be arduous and painful and still cost a ton of money even if they can find efficiencies and close the loopholes that the contractors abused to rob us blind. Deal with it as the mess it is, not the 'deux ex machina' of easy answers you wish it to be.

 

[Arlington]

I'm going to square my answer with F-Line's by saying we're both right. The total package with Pan Am may have been good deal statewide, but the local effect on Lechmere was this "can't occupy both sides of the street at the same time" (not even for a construction period) that will 100% require that old Lechmere close *before* ground can be broken on new Lechmere, and then we're fully at the mercy of getting the new station built before re opening. I would have at least liked a "you don't have to close Old Lechmere until you've severed the steel viaduct" kinda deal.