MBTA Construction Projects

RandomWalk said:
The T board meeting today had a presentation on plans to implement free standing mini-high platforms at the currently inaccessible commuter rail stations. It will be similar to the Lynn interim station.

I’m bothered by the challenge highlighted in the deck. Implementing high level platforms is $55-90 million and 4-8 years per station. This seems like a perfect example of the cost of not maintaining an in-house planning department.
Click to expand...
The Millennium Tower cost $375m to build - including going to bedrock, building up 684', plumbing, electricity, etc for all units, high-end finishes everywhere, I could go on. I get it's apples to oranges, but how in any world could an 800' elevated slab of concrete with some ramps and stair cases cost $90m - are we really saying that it costs as much to build 4 stations w/ full high level platforms as it does a luxury sky scrapper in the downtown of one of the most expensive cities in the country?
 
Yes, these costs are high. However, note the presentation is specific about the scope in that these are full accessibility upgrades, specifically noting appropriate vertical circulation. In some cases this could mean at least 2 elevators, extensive ramps and extensive stairs squeezed within the ROW, complex topography, and MBTA property, potential neighboring infrastructure adjustments and upgrades, and contractors charging a high premium when working around the T's operating schedule. I'm sure alongside all of that they're penning contingency in for some community requests, like Winchester's full canopy system, etc.

Inflated? Yes. Am I as shocked as everyone here? Not entirely..

It does seem strange that the solution then is to pick the really simple ones and have Keolis put cheap mini-highs in. Those are the easy ones where you won't have these high "complexity" costs.
 
stefal said:
Yes, these costs are high. However, note the presentation is specific about the scope in that these are full accessibility upgrades, specifically noting appropriate vertical circulation. In some cases this could mean at least 2 elevators, extensive ramps and extensive stairs squeezed within the ROW, complex topography, and MBTA property, potential neighboring infrastructure adjustments and upgrades, and contractors charging a high premium when working around the T's operating schedule. I'm sure alongside all of that they're penning contingency in for some community requests, like Winchester's full canopy system, etc.

Inflated? Yes. Am I as shocked as everyone here? Not entirely..

It does seem strange that the solution then is to pick the really simple ones and have Keolis put cheap mini-highs in. Those are the easy ones where you won't have these high "complexity" costs.
Click to expand...
I'll give every CR station without full high platforms a score between 1-4 for complexity. The rough scoring metrics are 1 is just build the platforms, 2 is add a couple ramps and a new crossing, 3 is adding a new footbridge/elevators and 4 is a full rebuild.

Fitchburg Line:
Fitchburg - 1
N. Leominster - 3
Shirley - 2-3, depending on freight traffic
Ayer - 2
West Concord - 1
Concord - 1-2, depending on how to treat the station building
Lincoln - 1
Kendall Green - 1
Brandeis/Roberts - 1
Waltham - 1 but the station needs to be moved to west of Moody St
Waverley - 2-3
Belmont - 2-3
Porter - 1-2
(4 difficult ones, 9 easy ones)

Lowell Line:
Lowell - 1
N. Billerica - 2
Wilmington - 3
Mishawum - 2 if it's ever reopened
Wedgemere - 2
W. Medford - 1
(1 difficult one, 4-5 easy ones)
Haverhill Line:
Haverhill - 2
Bradford - 1
Andover -1
Ballardvale - 1
N. Wilmington - 1
Reading - 1
Wakefield - 2 since it needs to be either North or South
Greenwood - 1
Melrose Highlands - 1
Melrose/Cedar Park - 1
Wyoming Hill - 1
(11 easy ones, no difficult ones)

Newburyport/Rockport Line:
Ipswich - 1
Hamilton/Wenham - 1
N. Beverly - 1
Rockport - 1
Gloucester - 1
W. Gloucester - 1-2
Manchester-by-the-Sea - 2
Beverly Farms - 1
Montserrat - 1 but the platforms need to be moved west of Spring St
Beverly - 3
Swapscott - 1-2
Lynn - 4
River Works - Doesn't count
(2 difficult ones, 10 easy ones)

Greenbush, Kingston, & Middleborough/Lakeville Lines:
No upgrades needed

Providence/Stoughton Line:
S. Attleboro - 4
Attleboro - 2
Mansfield - 3 (No foot crossings on the NEC, if this isn't a rule then it should be.)
Stoughton - 1 but the platform needs to be moved south of Wyman St
Canton Center - 1
Canton Junction - 3
Readville - 4
Hyde Park - 2 if the tracks aren't modified, 4 if they are
(4-5 difficult ones, 3-4 easy ones)

Franklin Line:
Forge Park/495 - 1
Franklin/Dean College - 1
Norfolk - 1
Foxboro - 1
Walpole - 2-3
Windsor Gardens - 1
Norwood Central - 1
Norwood Depot - 1 (Do we actually need both of these?)
Islington - 1
Dedham Corporate Center - 1
Endicott - 1-2
(0-1 difficult ones, 10-11 easy ones depending on how you configure Walpole,

Needham Line:
Should just be converted to rapid transit

Fairmount Line:
Readville is a 4, everything else is fine

Framingham/Worcester Line:

Grafton - 3
Westborough - 3 (1 if the giant metal ramp of doom isn't touched or level crossings are allowed)
Southborough - 1
Ashland - 3 (1 if the giant metal ramp of doom isn't touched or level crossings are allowed)
Framingham - 1
West Natick - 3 (1 if level crossings are allowed)
Wellesly Sq. - 3 (1 if level crossings are allowed
Wellesly Hills - 3 (1 if level crossings are allowed
Wellesly Farms. - 3 (1 if level crossings are allowed
Auburndale - 3 (1 if level crossings are allowed
W. Newton - 3
Newtonville - 3

(10 difficult ones, 2 easy ones, or 3/9 if level crossings are okay)


So about 19-20 stations where there is some major complexity factor, and a whopping 45ish ones that range from very easy to "It literally cannot be easier than this." Nowhere near enough to drive the average cost per station up to $80 million, or probably even $50 million.
 
The other shortsighted factor is that this assumes that each station would be done as a discrete entity with discrete bidding instead of there being construction bundles where some of the soft costs can be consolidated over multiple stations (like happened with most of the Fairmount Line rebuilds and infills). For example, it would make zero sense to treat the Reading Line renos as individual projects with individual contractors when they're all (Reading Station excepted) prefab as hell. Wad 'em up into one big bundle for a single design contractor; the bulk work brings down the total price tag considerably by applying discipline to normally slovenly soft costs.

Hell...it's the only way they can hope to tame the accessibility backlog before the heat death of the universe. I'd be looking to pick off large quantities of the easy ones fast with liberal bundling. But no...they're instead wasting time with the short-lifespan temp minis gimmick instead of even considering what efficiencies they could wring out. They did it before with the Fairmount bundling; I don't know why this is such a foreign concept.
 
They bundled some of the bridge work, but that hasn’t stopped some of the individual bridges from taking a long time to complete.

PTC is the only project where they have truly handled the problem on a systemwide basis. That was only because it’s a federal mandate with strict deadlines.

Could they break it up into platforms first, and elevators/ramps second? That might move some of the projects along faster.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The other shortsighted factor is that this assumes that each station would be done as a discrete entity with discrete bidding instead of there being construction bundles where some of the soft costs can be consolidated over multiple stations (like happened with most of the Fairmount Line rebuilds and infills). For example, it would make zero sense to treat the Reading Line renos as individual projects with individual contractors when they're all (Reading Station excepted) prefab as hell. Wad 'em up into one big bundle for a single design contractor; the bulk work brings down the total price tag considerably by applying discipline to normally slovenly soft costs.

Hell...it's the only way they can hope to tame the accessibility backlog before the heat death of the universe. I'd be looking to pick off large quantities of the easy ones fast with liberal bundling. But no...they're instead wasting time with the short-lifespan temp minis gimmick instead of even considering what efficiencies they could wring out. They did it before with the Fairmount bundling; I don't know why this is such a foreign concept.
Click to expand...
Especially since all you need at so many stations that are adjacent to a road crossing is a platform with a ramp on one end.
RandomWalk said:
Could they break it up into platforms first, and elevators/ramps second? That might move some of the projects along faster.
Click to expand...
I suspect if you make any modifications you need to make the whole thing ADA compliant. Besides for most cases it's just easier to do it all at once, the two are pretty tied together.
 
TheRatmeister said:
I suspect if you make any modifications you need to make the whole thing ADA compliant. Besides for most cases it's just easier to do it all at once, the two are pretty tied together.
Click to expand...

I know it triggers full compliance. I’m curious whether there is a way to get full high platforms without the T’s penchant for larding it with ramps and elevators where there’s a convenient grade crossing (e.g. Kendall Green or Waltham).
 
RandomWalk said:
I’m curious whether there is a way to get full high platforms without the T’s penchant for larding it with ramps and elevators where there’s a convenient grade crossing (e.g. Kendall Green or Waltham).
Click to expand...
Are there any stations like this where renovations have even happened? As far as I can tell all the full-highs on the network are either on single-tracked segments or at stations without a convenient grade crossing. Montello is the only example I can find but that was a new build. Either way it's clearly something the MBTA can build if they decide to.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Are there any stations like this where renovations have even happened? As far as I can tell all the full-highs on the network are either on single-tracked segments or at stations without a convenient grade crossing. Montello is the only example I can find but that was a new build. Either way it's clearly something the MBTA can build if they decide to.
Click to expand...
Chelsea is the obvious example that comes to mind, but even that cost the T some 33 million in 2019 dollars. Granted, that one had non standard elements in the form of molded concrete shelters, but still. And while probably a new build at the time, I think Brockton also has access via a track crossing.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Chelsea is the obvious example that comes to mind, but even that cost the T some 33 million in 2019 dollars. Granted, that one had non standard elements in the form of molded concrete shelters, but still. And while probably a new build at the time, I think Brockton also has access via a track crossing.
Click to expand...
I found the actual cost breakdown for the project. The first 8 pages are the chosen bid. Also the link didn't work for me in Firefox but it works fine in Chrome if anyone is having trouble. Anyways, $11.5 million of that figure comes from work on rail signals, $250k went right to the police ("Traffic officer services") and another $1 million comes from traffic signals and "communications system" whatever that means. So the actual station actually cost around $20 million. And of that $20 million, there are some interesting numbers in the bid chosen. $96k of sidewalks in the engineer's figures turned into $400k, tied for the most expensive out of any bid. (The others were $70-150k). The $1.65 million platforms turned into $4 million, but that's about in line with the rest of the bids so either everybody is gouging or the intitial estimate was off. Piles are a simlar deal, around $800k of difference between all the bids and the engineer's estimate. Either way, the platforms cost around $4 million 2019 dollars, or around $5 million 2024 dollars. Between the canopies and structural work I think somewhere around $15 million 2024 dollars is roughly what we could expect per rebuilt station. If a bunch of stations are bundled together that could probably come down.

Here's what I was going to say before I found the cost breakdown: That $33 million appears to be inflated by including intersection rebuildings/TSP for SL3, new rail signals, demoliton of the old station, and a lot of other things that aren't platforms. From the contract bidding: "The scope of work consists of the construction of the Chelsea Commuter Rail Station, including, but not limited to, new high level platforms, canopies, foundation systems, track work, signage, bench/windscreens, walls, earth support systems, sidewalks, stairways, lighting systems, communications systems, structures for maintenance and bus operations personnel, and landscaping. The work under this contract will also consist of upgrades to the railroad signal systems, installation of new traffic signal systems at local intersections and demolition of the existing Chelsea commuter rail station."

You are correct about Brockton as well, I missed that one.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Are there any stations like this where renovations have even happened? As far as I can tell all the full-highs on the network are either on single-tracked segments or at stations without a convenient grade crossing. Montello is the only example I can find but that was a new build. Either way it's clearly something the MBTA can build if they decide to.
Click to expand...
I think the 2006 strengthening of MAB accessibility regs outlawed new construction pedestrian grade crossings at stations, meaning Montello and Brockton are grandfathered and subsequent stations would need to be built with up-and-over access. That obviously doesn't affect stations that abut a road grade crossing, however.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I think the 2006 strengthening of MAB accessibility regs outlawed new construction pedestrian grade crossings at stations, meaning Montello and Brockton are grandfathered and subsequent stations would need to be built with up-and-over access. That obviously doesn't affect stations that abut a road grade crossing, however.
Click to expand...
I know it's not exactly a CR high platform, but GLX East Somerville would seem to be the obvious counterpoint.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I think the 2006 strengthening of MAB accessibility regs outlawed new construction pedestrian grade crossings at stations, meaning Montello and Brockton are grandfathered and subsequent stations would need to be built with up-and-over access. That obviously doesn't affect stations that abut a road grade crossing, however.
Click to expand...

So, for example, rebuilding Kendall Green with two full highs and asking folks to switch platforms at grade on Church St is allowed? That seems to eliminate some of the over-engineering which sandbags the projects.
 
Almost all of the Northside system (all but about 6-7stations) could be simple 500ft single or staggered double platforms for about 5M per platform. No train on the Northside need be more than 6 cars long, and probably no more than 5 cars
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I think the 2006 strengthening of MAB accessibility regs outlawed new construction pedestrian grade crossings at stations, meaning Montello and Brockton are grandfathered and subsequent stations would need to be built with up-and-over access. That obviously doesn't affect stations that abut a road grade crossing, however.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything saying that grade crossings aren't allowed. Section 18.8 seems to cover requirements for crossings as part of stations: "Detectable warnings shall be provided where a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way and the pedestrian and vehicular areas are not separated by curbs, railings, or other elements. The boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning which is 24 inches (24" = 610mm) wide, complying with 521 CMR 18.4.2(a), (b), and (c)"

Basically you need have the tactile bumps on the yellow strips, same as on the platform edge.
Stlin said:
I know it's not exactly a CR high platform, but GLX East Somerville would seem to be the obvious counterpoint.
Click to expand...
They're covered by the same regulations as far as I can tell so this would seem to support my interpretation.
 
I just went through Davis for the first time in a while. The T appears to have removed all the ceiling panels when installing new lights. It looks like crap, especially with the speakers zip tied to the leftover supports.
 
IIRC, they removed those ceiling panels in Davis sometime last year after that ceiling panel at Harvard fell and almost hit someone a little over a year ago.

This slide from the GM report at the 3/23/23 board meeting alludes to that too:
Screenshot 2024-05-30 at 10.22.21 AM.png
 
as02143 said:
They actually were sound dampeners to reduce the harsh acoustical echo at stations.
Click to expand...
Sound Dampening, Lighting Diffusion, often air distribution; lots of functional purposes to ceiling panels.

And of course the aesthetics of not having stations look like bombed out shells of stations from a war zone. The MBTA seems to be trying to scare as many riders as possible back into their private vehicles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top