Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Pedestrian crossings at street crossings are safer; trains tend to be going slower, and there's a dedicated part of the cycle where trains cannot be going through the intersection. Ped crossings neither at stations nor street crossings are potentially problematic, but less so than station crossings. They don't have as many people using them, people are less likely to cross in front of a train (waiting is a 10 second delay, rather than 6-15 minutes till the next train, and it's possible to have gates (which is done at a lot of new-build systems). Different animal from high-ridership GLX stations in trenches with poor sightlines.

Right now, there are only 6 crossings on the Green Line not at streets nor stations:

(B: Naples Road)
B: Fordham Road (former station)
B: Spofford Road
B: Mt. Hood Road (former station)
C: East of Washington Square
D: Chicken Farm

The first three on the B would only ever see service substantially more frequent than now if Harvard Ave turnbacks were introduced, and the Chicken Farm crossing only would with a new Needham branch. Both of those would require major tunnel construction since the Tremont Street Subway is at capacity. And all of those would be reasonable candidates for button-activated gates that give the trains a stop signal for safety - coordinated with traffic signals (there's some great new innovations in ped-only signals) for all except the Chicken Farm crossing.

As a transit planner, I would be much more confortable with a Naples Road crossing - especially with modern safety equipment - than with new crossings at extremely busy grade-separated stations. It'd be easy to integrate with transit signal priority - it could give a red signal to pedestrians if a train was coming.
 
datadyne007 said:
But there's unlimited money for a helipad. Fuck this.
Click to expand...

A helipad is basically just a glorified parking lot or roof deck. It's really an issue of permitting, not construction. The costs do not even come close to comparing.
 
JumboBuc said:
A helipad is basically just a glorified parking lot or roof deck. It's really an issue of permitting, not construction. The costs do not even come close to comparing.
Click to expand...

I assume he was referring to the whole $125million seaport improvement fund...
 
JumboBuc said:
A helipad is basically just a glorified parking lot or roof deck. It's really an issue of permitting, not construction. The costs do not even come close to comparing.
Click to expand...

It's about priorities. No one in the Baker admin is saying:

“It’s time to consider this as a transportation system amenity.”
Click to expand...

About the GLX like they are helicopter travel. They're just trying to kill it.

And yes, it's the whole fund itself for "transit improvements" that are road and helicopter focused.
 
datadyne007 said:
It's about priorities. No one in the Baker admin is saying:



About the GLX like they are helicopter travel. They're just trying to kill it.

And yes, it's the whole fund itself for "transit improvements" that are road and helicopter focused.
Click to expand...

Helipads are easy, and many of the road improvements to come in the Seaport are easy. Transit expansions are hard. Easy things get done first.

I am 100% for more investment in transit, but it is not a zero sum game. We should be able to have improvements in the Seaport and a helipad AND a Green Line Extension. Pitting the two against each other helps nobody. If they are pitted against each other, and evaluated on a cost-benefit basis, I'm afraid the Seaport stuff and the helipad might actually come out ahead (because of how relatively easy they will be in comparison to the GLX)...

As a firm believer in the value and importance of transit (and someone who will ride the GLX every day once it's finally open), I am 100% for the postponement of the project and any changes in plans that can be made to find savings. We were getting ripped off by WSK, plain and simple. No responsible transit advocate should want to give in to their extortion. Let's wait until May when we see what actual changes are being proposed before we get too worked up about them.

Also, Pollack is in the Baker Administration. She definitely sees the value of the GLX.
 
JumboBuc said:
Helipads are easy, and many of the road improvements to come in the Seaport are easy. Transit expansions are hard. Easy things get done first.

I am 100% for more investment in transit, but it is not a zero sum game. We should be able to have improvements in the Seaport and a helipad AND a Green Line Extension. Pitting the two against each other helps nobody. If they are pitted against each other, and evaluated on a cost-benefit basis, I'm afraid the Seaport stuff and the helipad might actually come out ahead (because of how relatively easy they will be in comparison to the GLX)...

As a firm believer in the value and importance of transit (and someone who will ride the GLX every day once it's finally open), I am 100% for the postponement of the project and any changes in plans that can be made to find savings. We were getting ripped off by WSK, plain and simple. No responsible transit advocate should want to give in to their extortion. Let's wait until May when we see what actual changes are being proposed before we get too worked up about them.

Also, Pollack is in the Baker Administration. She definitely sees the value of the GLX.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the issue is playing projects against each other, it's declaring priorities. Baker has made his priority in regard to the MBTA very clear: He wants to strip costs off the agency, primarily by blaming all of its problems on unionized labor. He wants to build no extensions, but isn't willing to seriously consider new revenue to fund the SGR improvements that one would assume he'd be "focusing" on by doing that.

It would make a huge difference if he'd change his message to "I understand how important this system is for the region, and I'm going to work to improve it," instead of "I understand how important good service is to you, and I'm as pissed as you are that the dullards running this show can't deliver it to you."
 
Equilibria said:
I don't think that the issue is playing projects against each other, it's declaring priorities. Baker has made his priority in regard to the MBTA very clear: He wants to strip costs off the agency, primarily by blaming all of its problems on unionized labor. He wants to build no extensions, but isn't willing to seriously consider new revenue to fund the SGR improvements that one would assume he'd be "focusing" on by doing that.

It would make a huge difference if he'd change his message to "I understand how important this system is for the region, and I'm going to work to improve it," instead of "I understand how important good service is to you, and I'm as pissed as you are that the dullards running this show can't deliver it to you."
Click to expand...

Yeah, Baker's messaging on transit could and should absolutely be better. But that doesn't make proposed improvements for the Seaport "fucked up".
 
JumboBuc said:
Yeah, Baker's messaging on transit could and should absolutely be better. But that doesn't make proposed improvements for the Seaport "fucked up".
Click to expand...

That isn't what I was referring to as "fucked up." I was, in fact, referring to the perceived priorities of our state government (tax breaks for the rich....dismantling of public transportation)
 
Downburst said:
In today's GLX mess, from the Globe:

Severe cuts due in Green Line project

Union Sq. might be on the chopping block (as is the whole project, still)
Click to expand...

So, Stonehenge it is for all those bridge footings that are still being erected today on a non-canceled contract for the flyovers of the Fitchburg Line.


Why do I get the feeling the only 'brutality' that gives them actual human feelings of guilt is banning Skanska from a re-bid.:rolleyes:
 
I have to believe those get used and they do build the Union Square branch, even if it is modified.
 
JumboBuc said:
Transit expansions are hard. Easy things get done first.

I am 100% for more investment in transit, but it is not a zero sum game. We should be able to have improvements in the Seaport and a helipad AND a Green Line Extension. Pitting the two against each other helps nobody. If they are pitted against each other, and evaluated on a cost-benefit basis, I'm afraid the Seaport stuff and the helipad might actually come out ahead (because of how relatively easy they will be in comparison to the GLX)...

As a firm believer in the value and importance of transit (and someone who will ride the GLX every day once it's finally open), I am 100% for the postponement of the project and any changes in plans that can be made to find savings. We were getting ripped off by WSK, plain and simple. No responsible transit advocate should want to give in to their extortion. Let's wait until May when we see what actual changes are being proposed before we get too worked up about them.

Also, Pollack is in the Baker Administration. She definitely sees the value of the GLX.
Click to expand...

Transit expansion shouldn't be hard. It should be obvious on its economic merit and sustainability. But in the US and Boston especially it has become the transportation equivalent of throwing a wedding... costs get inflated at every level just because it is viewed as gentrifying and a big city amenity.
 
JumboBuc said:
Yeah, Baker's messaging on transit could and should absolutely be better. But that doesn't make proposed improvements for the Seaport "fucked up".
Click to expand...

I wasn't criticizing the Seaport improvements. I'm criticizing Baker being the most reasonable, encouraging, and constructive leader ever when it's GE asking for money, but giving a giant middle finger to the MBTA and treating them like unruly schoolchildren. It's his double standard that's the issue, not the bare fact of Seaport improvements (or GE, by the way, I'm happy about that).

BTW, I don't think it's likely that Union Square gets cancelled. It's too easy for that to blow up in the Governor's face in 2018. He'd be giving a giant middle finger to an entire city.
 
Wow. Baker knows that if he cancels this he's going to lose reelection right?
 
GLX is needed but at $3b its not going to happen. Either they find a way to reduce costs or its getting cancelled. We can't afford to fund this at any price.
 
But that was an artificially inflated total from the sounds of it with the contractor gouging the city to increase its profit above the agreed amount.
 
If they get it back towards $2b, then they will proceed. I'm not sure its all contractor fluff. From the news articles on the report, there were different estimates of cost and everyone went with the lowball numbers to get it approved. If they can reduce the cost great. If they can't, it will either be cut back or cancelled. Its not happening at $3b.
 
TallIsGood said:
If they get it back towards $2b, then they will proceed. I'm not sure its all contractor fluff. From the news articles on the report, there were different estimates of cost and everyone went with the lowball numbers to get it approved. If they can reduce the cost great. If they can't, it will either be cut back or cancelled. Its not happening at $3b.
Click to expand...

Tall -- a serious Euro-contractor Arup is saying the stations can be trimmed resulting in significant savings

see for example the draft 90 day plan for the GLX
http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About... Board Presentationdatescorrected 1-20-16.pdf

and additional details on the facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153173136901681.1073741854.53151441680&type=3

It looks that if the reductions as proposed by Arup are realistic--

for example narrowing the modifications to the Lowell Branch Cut thereby reducing the need for the heavy concrete walls
11235000_10153173137046681_6915015841786569207_o.jpg


then there is a way forward -- perhaps with the replacement of the Union Square GLX with some sort of CR Station at Union Square
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top