MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

vanshnookenraggen said:
But there is nothing around Aquarium that would draw a large enough ridership to reduce crowding at South Station, and nothing planned. South Station IS the destination of most CR riders, Back Bay second, and the North Station/Haymarket will be third once the new office space starts to come on line (SBW falls under South Station).
Click to expand...

The Financial District is a major destination for most CR riders. Looking at a map, while there are more office towers right next to South Station, Aquarium is no further from Post Office Sq (sort of the center of the District) than South Station. A Central Station could take tremendous pressure off SS for those who get off there and walk to their offices.

It also would be a great stop to get on at to go south to avoid the SS crowds!
 
sm89 said:
The Financial District is a major destination for most CR riders. Looking at a map, while there are more office towers right next to South Station, Aquarium is no further from Post Office Sq (sort of the center of the District) than South Station. A Central Station could take tremendous pressure off SS for those who get off there and walk to their offices.

It also would be a great stop to get on at to go south to avoid the SS crowds!
Click to expand...

But that isn't worth the extra billion $$$ that it would cost. Central Station is a nice thing to have but it isn't necessary. It will be the first thing cut. A far better use of finds would be to create a northern mezzanine to the new underground station that connects to points north and deeper into the Financial District.
 
Good step, but still vague on timeline. At least it's been moved up, but advocates need to keep pushing.
 
We won this battle, but not the war yet. Next battle will be proper funding and inclusion in the CIP.

TM statement is coming.
 
Coyote137 said:
Good step, but still vague on timeline. At least it's been moved up, but advocates need to keep pushing.
Click to expand...

GLX took utterly unrelenting public pressure to get follow-through...and follow-through once again every time the project hit a setback and it looked like the state was going to cut-and-run. This one's absolutely no different on the pressure front, but things can indeed get done that way.
 
I wonder if its a stretch, but I feel like Chapter 91 could play a role in the fight for RedxBlue. It essentially cuts off access to a lot of people to access the Waterfront in a convenient way. Just a thought...
 
datadyne007 said:
We won this battle, but not the war yet. Next battle will be proper funding and inclusion in the CIP.

TM statement is coming.
Click to expand...

"Proper" funding just means funding. Billion-dollar projects don't just get handed money in the CIP - they need specific financing plans. GLX only happened because, in something of a coup, the Trump folks agreed to give the T a billion dollars for it.

If it were up to me, I'd be taking every dollar spent on South Coast Fail and spending it here, but it's not like that project has a firm financing plan either.
 
Equilibria said:
"Proper" funding just means funding. Billion-dollar projects don't just get handed money in the CIP - they need specific financing plans. GLX only happened because, in something of a coup, the Trump folks agreed to give the T a billion dollars for it.

If it were up to me, I'd be taking every dollar spent on South Coast Fail and spending it here, but it's not like that project has a firm financing plan either.
Click to expand...

Correction here, the RBC is NOT a billion dollar project. The latest study from the T proved it could be built with cut & cover between $200m and $350m ($350 is what it would cost to not majorly disrupt Cambridge St).

However, last week the MBTA admitted that if the state used a ‘cut and cover’ construction method where workers tear up Cambridge Street and then lay in the tunnel the cost of the project could shrink to between $200 and $250 million. While this method would be faster than boring it would cause more traffic disruptions on Cambridge Street. However, the work could be kept all underground at a cost of $350 million, a number that is still well below the 2010 reports.

http://eastietimes.com/2018/11/02/red-blue-line-connector-cheaper-than-once-thought/
Click to expand...
 
Still seems like it should be a lot less than 200-250 million. It's only a half mile.
 
datadyne007 said:
Correction here, the RBC is NOT a billion dollar project. The latest study from the T proved it could be built with cut & cover between $200m and $350m ($350 is what it would cost to not majorly disrupt Cambridge St).
Click to expand...

That's true and an important note. I was being hyperbolic.
 
datadyne007 said:
Under a street with utilities that are over a hundred years old.
Click to expand...
Can't/don't utilities pay some of the cost of renewing their infrastructure in situations like this? Are these really structured as "T gives ratepayers all new stuff"? (I agree it'd be unfair for ratepayers to have to buy all new stuff just on the T's insistence).

I'd think that the T might pay the depreciated value and some kind of $ for having to do it now vs 10 years from now (or when it blew up).
 
datadyne007 said:
Under a street with utilities that are over a hundred years old.
Click to expand...

Well...70 years. Cambridge St., after all, was an urban renewal auto-widening hellscape. In addition to having somewhat better-documented utilities, the width of the road means they can cut-and-cover dig up the left lanes and median while still retaining full traffic and unpinched emergency vehicle access via temp ban of on-street parking in each 2+ block radius they're staging. That's a lot of savings on mitigation right there, especially given that it's a hospital zone.

There is, however, some unavoidable cost tied up in demolition of old BL infrastructure when they punch through the west tip of Bowdoin Station to straighten the alignment. Elimination of the extreme-slow crawl through half of that very tight loop requires excavation of a solid wall of concrete, and will be one of the more time-consuming project phases even though it's all packed in a very small area between the station headhouse and Staniford St.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Are they? Did the urban renewal of the mid-20th century not scorch Cambridge Street's underground?
Click to expand...
Don't look now, but even utilities from 1958 would be 60 years old.

Maybe they'll tell us only the West End side of the street is 60 years old, and the Beacon Hill side goes back to Edison.
 
Arlington said:
Don't look now, but even utilities from 1958 would be 60 years old.

Maybe they'll tell us only the West End side of the street is 60 years old, and the Beacon Hill side goes back to Edison.
Click to expand...

No question there're major expenses to moving any utilities whether they're 10, 50, or 100 years old. The expense gets a lot higher though when those utilities are unmapped, which is what I was questioning. At least we don't have to worry about bumping into any old sloops or merchantmen like they did with the CA/T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top