Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

If we’re doing a straight cost per mile comparison for two wildly different projects, GLX is $530M/mi and CrossRail is $1.73B/mi
 
BosMaineiac said:
If we’re doing a straight cost per mile comparison for two wildly different projects, GLX is $530M/mi and CrossRail is $1.73B/mi
Click to expand...
CrossRail involves a lot of new deep bore tunnels and new stations under existing subway lines in London, similar in complexity to the proposed NSRL. GLX is a surface route requiring a lot of retaining walls, a community path, and moving over the adjacent commuter rail line, but it is still just a surface route. Huge difference there.
 
Charlie_mta said:
CrossRail involves a lot of new deep bore tunnels and new stations under existing subway lines in London, similar in complexity to the proposed NSRL. GLX is a surface route requiring a lot of retaining walls, a community path, and moving over the adjacent commuter rail line, but it is still just a surface route. Huge difference there.
Click to expand...

GLX also included the new rolling stock acquisition and brand new maintenance facility. I'd also point out that while it is a surface route, the GLX row had to also maintain an active railway at the same time which does add a bit of complexity. Honestly have no idea of the crossrail numbers include similarly bundled projects.
 
bakgwailo said:
GLX also included the new rolling stock acquisition and brand new maintenance facility. I'd also point out that while it is a surface route, the GLX row had to also maintain an active railway at the same time which does add a bit of complexity. Honestly have no idea of the crossrail numbers include similarly bundled projects.
Click to expand...

Crossrail did include new rolling stock order - and a much larger one than the GLX did, at that.

en.m.wikipedia.org

British Rail Class 345 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Jahvon09 said:
Amtrak had thought about possibly getting some of those trains for it's commuter rail! Not sure if they still do. :unsure:
Click to expand...

No chance whatsoever Amtrak ever thought about Class 345s. They're a foot and a half (nearly) too narrow and five or so inches too low to serve US high-level platforms.

They bear a (very) superficial similarity to the Airo trainsets Amtrak's recently ordered from Siemens (in that they have a full-width cab with streamlined ends), but that's where the similarities end.
 
Brattle Loop said:
No chance whatsoever Amtrak ever thought about Class 345s. They're a foot and a half (nearly) too narrow and five or so inches too low to serve US high-level platforms.

They bear a (very) superficial similarity to the Airo trainsets Amtrak's recently ordered from Siemens (in that they have a full-width cab with streamlined ends), but that's where the similarities end.
Click to expand...

You probably don't know what Amtrak might come up with. They could surprise us all. :unsure:
 
Jahvon09 said:
You probably don't know what Amtrak might come up with. They could surprise us all. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Not that this is the correct thread for this, but none of that makes any sense. The only thing where there's any question marks as to what Amtrak is buying is the next order for Long Distance equipment they're currently working on. And, while the outcome of that procurement is yet to be determined, it's a certainty that they won't be buying British-loading-gauge Bombardier electric multiple units for routes with zero electrification. They don't fit the platforms, they're uselessly narrow, and they literally cannot run anywhere on the system.

Now, since this thread is actually about the GLX, could a moderator perhaps move the off-topic Amtrak discussion to the appropriate thread?
 
Brattle Loop said:
Now, since this thread is actually about the GLX, could a moderator perhaps move the off-topic Amtrak discussion to the appropriate thread?
Click to expand...
As the person who started the whole discussion, I also feel it's more appropriate for the general MBTA thread given the way it has evolved.

My intention was to compare the Indian station to Lechmere, which is GLX-specific, but all subsequent discussions clearly have little to do with GLX-specific matters (aside from maybe the GLX vs CrossRail cost comparison).
 
Teban54 said:
As the person who started the whole discussion, I also feel it's more appropriate for the general MBTA thread given the way it has evolved.

My intention was to compare the Indian station to Lechmere, which is GLX-specific, but all subsequent discussions clearly have little to do with GLX-specific matters (aside from maybe the GLX vs CrossRail cost comparison).
Click to expand...
You brought up a good point and I've appreciated the discussion. Thanks!
 
It’s great that this project is finally complete…but why didn’t they connect the Union spur to porter? Wouldn’t that be smart ? Is anyone even talking about it ?
 
617 said:
It’s great that this project is finally complete…but why didn’t they connect the Union spur to porter? Wouldn’t that be smart ? Is anyone even talking about it ?
Click to expand...
It's actually an interesting story. (I may have a couple details wrong from memory, so others should correct me.) Basically GLX was mandated as part of settling a lawsuit over the Big Dig -- "If you're gonna build all this auto infrastructure, you also need to build some transit infrastructure to offset the impact," that kind of thing. As I understand it, the settlement specified a broad corridor from Lechmere to Tufts (ish) -- one that was wide enough that Union Square was "in-scope" for areas the extension would need to serve.

Some routes considered early in the planning process had only a single line, not two branches, serving Union Sq first before turning north to join what is now the Medford Branch. It was concluded that the tunneling costs for this approach would be quite high, and that Union Sq could be adequately served via a second branch, which brought us to the design we see today.

An extension beyond Union was never in scope for the project, in part because it was once thought that Union Sq wouldn't actually be a terminus anyway. Once the project was underway, it would have been disruptive to try to expand the scope to include an extension to Porter -- and the damn thing was hard enough to build already, so I can understand the decision to leave a Porter extension for "GLX Phase 2".

I think a lot of transit advocacy for the next few years will be focused on Blue-Red, but an extension to Porter will probably be a focus after that.
 
The Mystic Valley Parkway stop is technically still slotted as GLX Phase 2. I don’t think Porter will move up the heap of conflicting priorities at the T unless there is substantial grass roots agitation.
 
Fair points from both of you @HenryAlan @RandomWalk. I struggled a bit with my wording in my last sentence — I didn’t mean to suggest that Green to Porter would be a top priority, more that I see it in a class of projects (including Green to Needham and Orange to Roslindale Village) that would be more actively discussed in the public sphere after Blue-Red is (fingers crossed) someday complete.
 
At some point it makes you wonder, though: Unlike Red-Blue (which is short but involves tunneling), BLX to Lynn and the Needham Line conversions, short surface extensions like GLX to Porter and MVP sound like they should be simple and cheap enough, that they should have been able to be carried out concurrently with the bigger projects - even if we do focus on 1 big project at a time.
 
Teban54 said:
At some point it makes you wonder, though: Unlike Red-Blue (which is short but involves tunneling), BLX to Lynn and the Needham Line conversions, short surface extensions like GLX to Porter and MVP sound like they should be simple and cheap enough, that they should have been able to be carried out concurrently with the bigger projects - even if we do focus on 1 big project at a time.
Click to expand...
in the ideal world, there would be continuous expansion. Finish GLX, then immediately take on 1 or 2 of these low hanging fruit projects, if for no other reason than to maintain expertise before starting on the next big, transformative enhancement. So while planning continues for Red-Blue, do OL+1 to Rozzie and begin prep work for BLX, etc.
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
At some point it makes you wonder, though: Unlike Red-Blue (which is short but involves tunneling), BLX to Lynn and the Needham Line conversions, short surface extensions like GLX to Porter and MVP sound like they should be simple and cheap enough, that they should have been able to be carried out concurrently with the bigger projects - even if we do focus on 1 big project at a time.
Click to expand...
GLX to Porter would have been simple if there were a 4 track ROW all the way to Porter, but there isn't. The existing tracks narrow down to two tracks east of Porter, which will make shoe-horning the GLX into Porter a bit expensive.
 
This gets into the funding swamp for infrastructure projects. The funding system is not set up for a continuous pipeline of smaller projects. It assumes that things will be a big bang, and everyone gets a turn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top