Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[whighlander]

The big project premium is because you are paying an extra 3 layers of subcontractors to bid out large chunks of the project and each layer gets a 40% cut for handing out the work down to the guys really doing the work. Until you break down the project into parts that the smaller companies can bid on, then you won't get real competition and you will be stuck paying all the middlemen's premiums. Looking at the pieces of the project individually and adding up what they would cost to contract out individually leads you to that conclusion. However...

"Eliminating the middleman is never as simple as it sounds. 'Bout 50% of the human race is middlemen, and they don't take kindly to being eliminated"

Tangent -- Plus there is a role for middlemen or middlewomen -- coordination

It doesn't do much good if the beautifully designed and constructed center island stations can''t connect to the intermediate track because they are the wrong width

So its all about the balance between finely divided contracts with the T's own responsible to make sure nothing slipped between the tracks and hiring a Bechtel and assuming that everything is in good hands.

As a point of reference -- there is a story recently that the rebuild of the Commonwealth Ave bridge deck over the Pike and rail at the BU Bridge has been held up for a year because the design specs for the steel girders were screwed-up by one of the contractors

 

[datadyne007]

Unfortunate. We're cutting off the nose to spite the face, but whatever. I keep saying this, but had this project been bid properly, none of you would have been complaining about the pricetag and we'd all be enjoying modern stations & amenities for a projected high ridership extension. Whatever. We just get half-assed results in the end. Oh, what could have been...

 

[davem]

If construction was brought in-house, and expansion of the system was constant, we could get a lot more built, with a lot better efficiency.

I've been saying this for years. There's easially two generations of continuous expansion that needs to be done, not to mention reconstruction. The T should be a continuously expanding entiity, until it's service saturation is as dense as downtown. Expansions should be as constant as operations and maintence, not something that has to be fought over for decades. Yeah, maybe in a century this would become a pork barrel building bridges to nowhere, but that wouldn't happen anytime soon.

 

[kjdonovan]

Yeah, maybe in a century this would become a pork barrel building bridges to nowhere, but that wouldn't happen anytime soon.

In a century, assuming reasonable legislation (a big if) human-driven cars will be banned from larger and larger swaths of downtown (much like horses aren't allowed on highways).

That will eliminate on-street parking, "looking for parking" traffic, and more people will opt for cheaper bus-style self-driving vehicles for most routes.

That means no traffic, no high personal expense and liability, and no need for light rail. Certain roads will be identified as self-driving bus-only and will be much faster than any rail option. Mass transit rail will be out of business by 2100. Then all that matters is how close you live to downtown, period. Not how close you are to a transit stop.

 

[tangent]

Tangent -- Plus there is a role for middlemen or middlewomen -- coordination

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean one contract for the whole shebang. Just that there is a plan that everyone is following and someone to make sure the contractors are adhering to that plan.

 

[Brad Plaid]

Again, if we doing all of this shaving and only reducing it to $2BN. We are getting ripped over by the contractors again. Walking away with being paid far more money than they should for the labor and material done.

Well this is Assachusetts after all. Sorry to be so cynical but this is turning out to be Big Dig, Jr. in terms of cost overruns/incompetence.

 

[ceo]

A friend of mine who uses a wheelchair had this to say about these changes: "I wish I was surprised by fucking over the disabled. They should be making stations more accessible, not less."
And yes, you try climbing a 20'-vertical ramp in a manual wheelchair and tell me it's accessible. Or try it if you are ambulatory but have mobility issues.
Here's what I really don't get, though: We were told, when the Ball Square station design was presented, that because the bridge approach was too steep to be ADA compliant already and the replacement would have to be steeper due to the longer span, the accessible path off the west end of the bridge ran through the station, using its elevators. (Which I guess means you're hosed if you need to get through there when the T isn't running, but anyway.) So how are they going to maintain ADA compliance with this new minimalist station, assuming they still have to replace the bridge?

 

[tangent]

A friend of mine who uses a wheelchair had this to say about these changes: "I wish I was surprised by fucking over the disabled. They should be making stations more accessible, not less."
And yes, you try climbing a 20'-vertical ramp in a manual wheelchair and tell me it's accessible. Or try it if you are ambulatory but have mobility issues.
Here's what I really don't get, though: We were told, when the Ball Square station design was presented, that because the bridge approach was too steep to be ADA compliant already and the replacement would have to be steeper due to the longer span, the accessible path off the west end of the bridge ran through the station, using its elevators. (Which I guess means you're hosed if you need to get through there when the T isn't running, but anyway.) So how are they going to maintain ADA compliance with this new minimalist station, assuming they still have to replace the bridge?

The ADA compliance issue is with the sidewalk is on the street's sidewalk not the station itself. They need to fix the sidewalk. As you point out making people go through the station is a poor solution that leaves the sidewalk ADA non compliant.

 

[whighlander]

.. try climbing a 20'-vertical ramp in a manual wheelchair and tell me it's accessible. Or try it if you are ambulatory but have mobility issues.

Ceo -- if you follow the logic train of the following -- then its a temporary inconvenience at best

In a century, assuming reasonable legislation (a big if) human-driven cars will be banned from larger and larger swaths of downtown (much like horses aren't allowed on highways). ... no need for light rail. Certain roads will be identified as self-driving bus-only and will be much faster than any rail option. Mass transit rail will be out of business by 2100.

ADA for mobility impaired will be a thing of the past long before all non-self driving cars are banned from downtown

Technology in robotics and assisted mobility will make the manual wheel chair totally an anachronism in the very near future -- Stair climbing is already a reality, and assisted walking for many wheel chair-bound is just around the corner [check on rewalk robotics]

After a generation of ramp building or in many cases non-building that precluded or vastly complicated many small to medium projects involved with historic structures -- we will be free from the need for these in the near future

 

[statler]

ADA for mobility impaired will be a thing of the past long before all non-self driving cars are banned from downtown

Technology in robotics and assisted mobility will make the manual wheel chair totally an anachronism in the very near future -- Stair climbing is already a reality, and assisted walking for many wheel chair-bound is just around the corner [check on rewalk robotics]

I knew a guy a few years ago who was riding around in busted-up wheel chair for months because his insurance company would only cover replacements every few years, so yeah, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[boston85]

Ceo -- if you follow the logic train of the following -- then its a temporary inconvenience at best



ADA for mobility impaired will be a thing of the past long before all non-self driving cars are banned from downtown

Technology in robotics and assisted mobility will make the manual wheel chair totally an anachronism in the very near future -- Stair climbing is already a reality, and assisted walking for many wheel chair-bound is just around the corner [check on rewalk robotics]

After a generation of ramp building or in many cases non-building that precluded or vastly complicated many small to medium projects involved with historic structures -- we will be free from the need for these in the near future

Well the technology might be here or in the near future but do not except a mass rush because the Medicare funding mechanism is absurd and will limit the adoption of technology. For example Medicare doesn't distinguish between a powered or manual wheelchair.

About ten years ago DEKA made the iBot (sold by J&J). It is a self propelled wheel chair that could go off road and even climb stairs, raise up so the operate could reach shelves. Basically it gave the opportunity for disabled to contribute more to society than they otherwise could. It was way ahead of it's time technology but not many know about it because congress balked at changing the reimbursement rate. Not a large enough handicapped population can afford it with the current reimbursement rate and J&J discounted it about 8 years ago. Congress did not think $10K for a unit was worth the freedom and independence of a quadriplegics. But hey, the technology was reused and so we have the Segway.

 

[oyhimylm]

For anyone interested, here's the full presentation from the 3/2 meeting.

My thoughts:

This looks pretty terrible from several perspectives.

A. The station platforms aren't being designed to handle 4 car trains. Considering this will likely be necessary at some point, this seems incredibly short-sighted.

B. Disabled people, enjoy some super long ramps.

C. It's unclear whether there are provisions for faregates. Front door boarding on this line will be absolutely terrible for rush hour dwell time.

Napkin Math (Peak Time):

Station Entries/hr: 1000
Assumed Headway: 5 mins (12 trains/hr)
Average Train Length: 2.5
Passengers per boarding Door: 33

Charlie Card Board: 1 sec
Cash/Reload Board: 8 sec
Assumed Average: 2 sec

Board time per station per trip: 1:10

That's relatively long, and doesn't factor in delays because people aren't moving to the back of the train, etc. The headway on the D line is also currently longer than 5 minutes, and 2 second average to board may be too short. Additionally, the "peak of the peak" would see a higher boarding rate than the average 1000. This would be a serious degradation of service.

D. As previously mentioned, the exposed platform will be uncomfortable during Winter. Additionally, most of these stations are in a trench, like the Orange Line in the SW Corridor. It's one thing to have a bare-bones station in the median of a street (B/C/E) or on its own (D), but it will be a wholly different experience next to a commuter rail corridor. There should be a wall between the GL and CL tracks at the stations, the same way there is at the OL stations.

E. How do the previously discussed "change order" charges fit in here? Is this actually going to save a significant amount of money, or is the Commonwealth going to burn 80% of it away on these charges?

 

[The EGE]

The revised timeline for the Charliecard replacement is now circa 2020 - sooner than most of these stations will now be finished. The plan is for that to allow proof-of-payment boarding via tap targets at all doors. (Paper tickets would have an RFID chip to allow taps.) That would require fare machines installed at all surface stations, which probably involves ADA mods, which the T has been very resistant to. So that's the likely path forward for the Green Line.

The super long ramps and lack of redundant elevators simply will not fly. The T has agreed to this in several lawsuits. Very, very easy target for lawyers wanting to make some money.

 

[Matthew]

^ Agreed; but I've often wondered how they got away with the super-long ramps on Fairmount?

 

[Upstruk]

From a brief look at these revised stations most at least keep a reasonably similar entrance to the station as the previous designs. However the Union sq and Washington street station entrances are out of the way and hidden. I would say those changes are not worth the money. Why build a station that does not have good pedestrian connections. Someone coming from Inman square probably now has 5 minutes added to their walk to the station.

Edit. Maybe I am misreading the union square entrance location. Maybe it is meant to be on the west side of the platform and people walk through the greyed out parcel of land. It looks like they have both VEd the design and the design drawings!

 

[whighlander]

Well the technology might be here or in the near future but do not except a mass rush because the Medicare funding mechanism is absurd and will limit the adoption of technology. For example Medicare doesn't distinguish between a powered or manual wheelchair.

About ten years ago DEKA made the iBot (sold by J&J). It is a self propelled wheel chair that could go off road and even climb stairs, raise up so the operate could reach shelves. Basically it gave the opportunity for disabled to contribute more to society than they otherwise could. ... Not a large enough handicapped population can afford it with the current reimbursement rate and J&J discounted it about 8 years ago. Congress did not think $10K for a unit was worth the freedom and independence of a quadriplegics. But hey, the technology was reused and so we have the Segway.

Boston -- $10K is ridiculous -- but hey we've now got Hoverboards using the same tech concept but Moore's Law enhanced

That's the thing with technology is always a few years ahead of the regulations and laws -- a couple of decades ago we could handle that "Phase Lag"

Not anymore -- a couple of years is now a couple of generations of technology and quite possibly a factor of 10 in price performance

 

[datadyne007]

Meanwhile, congrats to Seattle on their $1.8 billion deep-as-hell (about 100 ft down) 3-mile light rail extension:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...il-station-and-how-it-could-transform-seattle

 

[datadyne007]

A FMCB meeting is occurring right now and they are expected to discuss the GLX. Will be posting updates I see on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/ndungca

 

[JumboBuc]

I attended the the GLX Meeting at Tufts tonight. Most of the GLX team's presentation focused on possible design changes being considered to cut back on bridge construction costs.

Medford St and School St bridges:
The team is looking into shifting one of the Green Line tracks southward, out of the existing rail corridor and closer to Somerville High. By doing a cut-and-cover tunnel through the land behind the high school they could leave the two bridges intact, as current horizontal clearance has room for three tracks but not four. I'm skeptical that cut-and-cover can be cheaper than rebuilding two bridges, but its something they're considering.

Lowell St:
This bridge was rebuilt in 2006 and current GLX plans call for it to be rebuilt again. Apparently the current bridge spans over old abutments left over from the previous bridge that are no longer load-bearing. The team is considering the possibility of removing these old abutments and building a new retaining wall further back without touching the structure of the current bridge. This could widen the horizontal clearance enough to leave the existing bridge as is.

Broadway:
The team is looking into rebuilding the new Broadway bridge narrower than it is now. This would be done by removing the current parking spaces on the south side of the bridge and cutting back on the right-turn lane on the north side. This would make for a cheaper and more importantly faster project, as apparently this bridge must be complete before lots of other work can proceed.

College Ave:
The College Ave bridge needs a third lane for right turns, and current plans call for the bridge to be widened to add this. The GLX team is looking into the possibility of cannibalizing the existing sidewalk for a turn lane, then building a designated pedestrian and cyclist bridge parallel to the existing bridge to the west. This less-substantial pedestrian bridge could be cheaper than widening the auto bridge.

Over all, I was encouraged by these proposals. If any or all of them work, they could yield cost and time savings without having any negative effect on the experience of riders. Makes you wonder why they weren't considered in the first place....

 

[FK4]

^Cool
Was the quality of the stations discussed? Nothings been decided on that, right?