Hey, there! Log in / Register

Green Line Extension now so far over budget state officials say they might have to just call it off

The Herald reports state officials now think extending the Green Line through Somerville might cost upwards of $3 billion - and the federal government has only committed to $1 billion of that, and might take that away if state officials can't figure out how to pay for the rest, which apparently they're have trouble doing.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

How the Heck does an extension along an existing ROW get to cost so much money? What's responsible for the cost escalation?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd like to know this too.

And I might add (and shameless self plug) that the Silver Line Gateway, which is also running in a abandoned ROW is moving right along, on schedule and budget.

April 2015 Pics
June 2015 Pics
August 2015 Pics

up
Voting closed 0

EVERY construction project goes way over budget. It's just the way it seems to work in our country. Part of the problem might be that government is legally required to take the contractor who offers to do it for the least money, but then the contractor is under no obligation to meet the estimates they were judged by. That's a HUGE incentive to estimate substantially under the actual cost. But private projects have that problem, too. Now, if they had to meet their estimates, maybe they'd be able to guess a little closer to actual cost...

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, that isn't exactly how it works. You do have to stick to your bid, but there is something called change orders, where if something is going to cost more, you have to explain why, and prove that wasn't part of the initial scope of your bid, if it is under the original scope, but it is just costing more because of poor estimation, you have to eat the loss. For instance, a change order can happen when something isn't on the blueprints for the project you bid on, or the prints were speced wrong, which happens all of the time. If you missed something that is on the drawings, or you misread them, it's your loss. If there is disagreement about a change order, it can go to court. GM's have to put up a bond too before they can get job too, so if they screw up, they can't just walk away because they are going to lose money on the deal, they will lose more if they walk. Like the big dig, one reason it was so over budget was because they didn't really know what was under the city, hence alot of change orders.

up
Voting closed 0

The Big Dig went way, way the hell over budget and over schedule and it didn't get called off! What gives here?

up
Voting closed 0

Cancel the remaining "design group" meetings, public hearings, progress updates. Cancel the plans for the "community pathway", eliminate the sound barriers and other "necessary" mitigation measures. And just build a basic transit line.

If Somerville wants all the other nonsense, let Somerville pay for it.

up
Voting closed 0

The Tremont Street Subway took 2 years to build AND IT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE! All these environmental impact studies and ridership studies are BS! Build the same thing!!

up
Voting closed 0

.... which is that one of the basic "everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" rules is "put things back the way you found them."

In this case, that means, "if you are going to build something noisy like a rail line, then sound barriers aren't an add on, they're part of the job."

up
Voting closed 0

Yep. Putting sound barriers in from word go is ultimately cheaper than the hundreds of (justified) lawsuits from homeowners who just saw their property values crater when their homes became unlivable.

up
Voting closed 0

Sound barriers are an UNNECESSARY waste of money. And don't give us that BS about unacceptable noise. For one thing, it's not like people are suddenly going to go deaf by having electric streetcars passing by. For another thing, it's a CITY. Noise is part of a city, and people have this amazing capability to adapt to change.

But let's fleece the state for unnecessary and costly 'mitigation" (like ugly and pointless concrete walls), which provides no legitimate benefit to the end users of the project, under the guise of "quality of life". And given that sound barriers in urban settings cost about $1 million per half mile, it's no wonder the price tag is up to $3 billion.

up
Voting closed 0

to have sound barriers! How else would the MBTA get needed local public support for the project and developers to make as much money than by other people paying for sound barriers?

up
Voting closed 0

The GLX is 4.3 miles. I'm not sure how you got 4.3mi * $2M/mi to equal $3B ($3000M)...

up
Voting closed 0

Compared to the noise from the commuter rail, and the truck traffic on nearby streets, the Green Line trolleys are sotto-voce.

up
Voting closed 0

They're building a trolley on what's an existing commuter rail line. Why do they need to add sound barriers?

up
Voting closed 0

Let's.. so maybe in another 70 years we can try at this again. (this extension has been planned since the 1940s)

*eye roll*

I understand the cost thing, but this just shows that the politicians are all full of hot air when it comes to expanding and fixing transit for our region.

up
Voting closed 0

They were planning on extending it all the way to Woburn and converting it to heavy rail rolling stock.

up
Voting closed 0

I could have sworn the opening date was set for 2016. Surely theyre already testing the line right?

The thing about a democracy is that the officials cant lie to the people because they get held accountable, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Man, if you told me this green line extension was going to cost 250 million I would say to just scrap it.

Hey Somerville, take the bus like the rest of us!

up
Voting closed 0

Except that Somerville is under-served by buses, is crisscrossed by roads that aren't car friendly (and therefore not bus friendly either), and all of the buses it does have terminate at outer T stops. There's no one-seat rides downtown except the Red Line at Davis.

up
Voting closed 0

There's Davis in the west, Sullivan in the east (I know it's not technically in Somerville and Assembly is, but that's where all the buses go) and nothing but bus service in between. And the geography of the city makes it apparently impossible to run a bus up and down the hills and into Cambridge. So can we get buses that won't fill beyond bursting at any time of day when people try to use them?

up
Voting closed 0

Hey, Pete:

We got stuck with I-93. We got the noise. We got the pollution We got our city split in half. We got property values diminished. And the suburbs to the north got a faster car commute.

Then the Big Dig meant more traffic on 93. More noise. More pollution.

You think we should give up on the Green Line extension? Fine. Bring 93 back to pre-dig traffic love.s Close one lane each way Deal?

up
Voting closed 0

I've been on the 80 and 87 numerous times. They parallel the train route for much of the way. I find these routes aren't super full except when you start getting close to McGrath. I suspect ridership isn't going to be that great on the GLX. I think a commuter rail station at Tufts and better frequency would have been a better used of funds. Hell none of the Somerville bus routes qualify for the T "Key Bus Route" designation. Any of those corridors would be better served with rapid transit.

up
Voting closed 0

Good point regarding key bus routes, but that doesn't mean this route wouldn't draw many more numbers on the GLX than currently on bus. Bus ridership does not translate directly to transit ridership in that more people are attracted to light rail than bus. Think about no traffic and more frequency offered by GLX. Buses on the routes you mention do not run frequently because of low ridership, but they also have low ridership because of lack of frequent runs. Chicken and egg. Change the quality of service and you'll also change the number of users.

up
Voting closed 0

Somerville, too, is a very densely-populated city, and many people (myself included) want the Green Line extension.

Many people in Somerville also work at the hospitals, so they, too want the Green Line extension to go through.

Having public transportation within a 5-mnute walk from my place would be great. Here's hoping the GLX goes through.

up
Voting closed 0

I know the "start" of the project was largely delayed due to needing to acquire certain lands surrounding the track, right? That was the most expensive part, wasn't it?

After you have the land, why isn't it just laying down the track, building a few stations and you're done?

Why is that BILLIONS of dollars at all??

up
Voting closed 0

Why can't the state just lay track, put up catenary & signals, make stations simple concrete platforms with grade crossings and JC Decaux bus style shelters for now? Build fancy stations later, but just get the bare bones for a functional extension done for now. Why is this any more complicated than it was to build the D line in the 1950s?

up
Voting closed 0

And implement proof-of-payment so that in the 21st century, a train with 100 passengers on-board doesn't have to wait till a fellow passenger loads crinkly dollar bills into a fare box.

up
Voting closed 0

is below street grade. you need elevators at least.

up
Voting closed 0

Because the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in the 90s and those street level stops don't meet the requirements.

up
Voting closed 0

Why is this any more complicated than it was to build the D line in the 1950s?

What is now the D line was an existing rail line that was converted, so the tracks and much of the other infrastructure were already there.

up
Voting closed 0

...how much is going for building the ridiculous, convoluted yard & shop behind BET, condemning several businesses, rather than putting it in Yard 8 where it should be. There's some major cost savings right there.

up
Voting closed 0

It's fairly far along. The other section in the Lowell Line bed does have a lot of cooks arguing the broth but it may go up a few stops and then finish in increments over the next half century.

up
Voting closed 0

They've also already built some of the station-area walkways around Medford & School Streets over the last several months- was surprised by the relatively quick work on that

up
Voting closed 0

Every time I see that picture of the construction of the original subway (now the green line from Park Street to Boylston station) - I'm amazed at how much they accomplished using manual labor and horses. That whole thing only took a couple of years. They didn't have the luxury of advanced engineering, diesel-powered construction machinery, or the fact that the green line extension's tracks will neither be underground nor elevated.

up
Voting closed 0

I have no idea why, but about a mile of the Green Line Extension between Lechmere and Washington Street will be elevated. And it will have an elevated bicycle viaduct next to it.

I've said it before: figure out how to build transit cheaply. For a billion (or 3 billion) dollars, we should be building rail all over the place, not blowing it all on giant glass boxes along a single 4-mile line.

Even if this project somehow gets finished, the monumental waste of money will make sure no more rail transit gets built in Boston for a really long time.

up
Voting closed 0

"Pollack said there are several reasons the T vastly underestimated the price. Chief among them, she said, is that everything in the world was cheaper 20 years ago, when this was supposed to have been finished."

up
Voting closed 0

Underestimate the cost until the public is on the hook. People fell for it with the big dig and GLX. Olympics 2024 was an exception. Most aren't falling for it in various states with high speed rail either.

up
Voting closed 0

So they realize that putting this off now will just make any future extension plans even more expensive, right? God bless the patience of the people of Somerville for dealing with this crap all these decades.

up
Voting closed 0

the bakerization of the T has started... privatize this, cancel that, next a fare increase?

up
Voting closed 0

How so? This was signed Deval's job and construction officially started in 2013, two years before Baker took office.

up
Voting closed 0

cancelling the project. Not starting it.

up
Voting closed 0

If the T were actually privatized, a company would have skin in the game to keep it on budget and actually running. Find another lame boogyman perhaps?

More likely that crony deals made in the past for this fast track construction deal are now coming to roost (isn’t that DePaola’s specialty?) or simple matters of time and inflation for all we know. Labor is the bulk of the T’s cost problems last I checked, and I imagine all of this T expansion work was won by union shops to boot (further increasing cost) I’m guessing this is how the Big Dig went from 1B -> 15B, special interests all getting theirs because taxpayers are paying for it.

As for fares, they have been too low to support the system for ages now. We could be so lucky for them to keep pace with the rest of the country’s transit systems.

up
Voting closed 0

here's the way it works. privatize....something...something.... save money.

up
Voting closed 0

is Republican patronage.

up
Voting closed 0

I think holding off and reviewing the current proposal which at this point seems to be WAY over budget is called due diligence, smart and calculated.

up
Voting closed 0

Even at $2 Billion, it sounds high to my head. I don't understand why it is costing so much. It seems the article is blaming the "hot construction" market, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying the contractor is charging more now? The material to build spiked ~40%?

Actually, I do have one speculative theory that could explain it, but the article did not mention it - the railyard they need to build that now has to be built on land that they now have to buy. Originally, it was planned to be built on lands it already owned, but now has to buy the land (Eminent Domain?) which I can see buying it now is much more expensive than 5 years ago during the lowest point of the recession. I don't know if that math really works out, but that's the one part - aside the standard corruption and graft line so commonly thrown about, but never seen - that I can see raise cost by a good chunk.

I have to say this, but the metrics are a getting questionable. I remember a fight a while back with Markk as we argued about cost and benefits. To me, GLX is justified because the ridership estimates justify the costs. But intellectual honesty means having ask "Well, how about if it now cost a billion more?" And I don't know the answer, but it means I have to redo the numbers if it still means justified. Though ideally, we should figure how to stop the overrun as it really hard to make sense that it should cost so much for only a few miles on an existing ROW.

My most worrisome thing that says cancellation is even more heighten is we have Baker. I have no qualms with Baker's performance so far, but one of things I seen him do so far is cut stuff (like the convention center). My guess of his modulus operandi, that he would not kill GLX if the price stayed on budget, I think he would pull the kill switch rather than double down as the price dramatically rise (as it is right now).

Since they are likely not going to kill the corruption (assuming that is it is the reason, I just don't know, I just can't figure how the money if pocketed and accounted), it means they have to kill features. Move the trainyard plan back to the original plan, apologies to the artist loft. Kill the bike trail from it's really nice on-ramps, well-lit, and everything plan to be more like the Bike-to-the-sea bike trail. And can we just do stations like the D line rather than Heavy Rail gated stations (Or just strips of asphalt like how they first did it for the D, but I know that is not legal anymore)?

up
Voting closed 0

...but cutting the convention center was a lay-up. Green line extension services entire communities but the cc just serviced hotels, seaport restaurants (many from out of town) and of course, the hacks of the convention bureau.

If Baker can thread the needle of killing dumb projects and facilitating good ones, that would be nice, but I agree it's more than likely he'll cut more than needed (from my moderate viewpoint).

up
Voting closed 0

which is to can the whole thing.

I think Baker and especially Pollock will try to go the cost cutting hard choices route. I would hope that includes some serious, serious cash from Somerville mayor Curtatone who is the largest beneficiary here via increased property values and property taxes. If he wants some frills back then he needs to pay for them much like BU has contributed to Comm Ave rebuilding, only more dollars.

[edit: On the MBTA ppt there is an option of "saving" $138M by delaying a road project on Rt. 16 that would connect to the GLX endpoint. This is a very bad idea. Such a project is long overdue and should have been done decades ago. Id rather see a couple more cents of gas tax. This is the ideal time to increase gas taxes when people won't feel it due to record gasoline supplies and plummeting prices.]

up
Voting closed 0

State limits the ability of towns to raise property taxes. Somerville doesn't have any excess capacity in their allowed limit and the state restricts that growth to 2.5% per year from the previous levy. Can't tell Somerville to pay for something, and then refuse to allow them the power to actually do so.

up
Voting closed 0

If residents want the GLX they can vote for a property tax override exceeding the 2.5% as others do.
Residents have actually been having their taxes increase less than 2.5% in recent years with commercial property owners paying more.
http://www.somervillema.gov/news/property-tax-rates-going-down-thanks-ma...

up
Voting closed 0

So at 8.7 billion in assessed residential value, Somerville would have to go from collecting .95% of assessed value to, near 30%. Which is obviously impossible and would instigate a massive sell-off. Towns can split the R/O and CIP rates, but there's only $1.5billion is assessed commercial/industrial value - there's no way commercial rates can subsidize both low residential rates and even medium-scale transportation projects.

I trust you'd apply the same logic to the highway capital projects on a town by town basis,

up
Voting closed 0

and not try to fund the difference all in one year as I think you are trying to calculate. That's not how things work in government. I don't mean for Somerville to fund the entire gap, just a reasonable part of it, especially some of the frills like the sound walls and the afterthought bike/walk path tacked on like a legislative amendment.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm calculating on a 30-year timeframe as well, it's still not possible under the current circumstances. I'm believe, as you do, that greater local involvement - both financial and in project steering - is a solution, it's the method that the best transit agencies in the world the use, but it requires a total shift in the way cities are constituted as political and financial entities. Somerville can contribute to a thirty-year bond, as can Medford and Cambridge who also benefit mightily from this project (also Boston could do the same vis-a-vis Red-Blue). But none of these cities has the wherewithal to handle both municipal services and major transit improvements - if the State were to take a greater role in funding schools and cities were to continue this consolidation of certain municipal services across regional lines - then that opens up possibilities.

It's just not where Somerville is at right now, those sound walls are mitigation efforts, there's a legal requirement for them. As with ADA-accessible stations, which are more expensive, but also the only option available. Maybe threatening GLX, rustles some feathers, forces Greater Boston to consider that regional political/financial entities are necessary moving forward, but we also have to play with cards that've been dealt. I think you're drastically underselling the ease with which Somerville can come in and diffuse enough of the costs without hurting other municipal services in the process. The costs shouldn't be that high in the first place, why they are...

up
Voting closed 0

Asking Somerville to come up with tax revenue to pay is a tough sell. They can't raise much (relatively speaking), and we don't really take that approach with any other MBTA project. It's also a way to ensure that any future expansion proposal will result in the host community opposing.

A different approach, and one I'd like to see, is for the state to pressure Somerville to substantially upzone the areas nearest the station, without increasing parking requirements. Ensuring substantial ridership on the GLX, increasing housing stock in the inner Boston metro (and thus putting downward pressure on rent or sticker prices), getting some commercial development to create more "reverse commuters", and increasing jobs are all great for the Massachusetts economy. Somerville can contribute to the bottom line by ensuring that the regional and state-wide benefits of GLX are larger. It does that by allowing for substantially more housing and commercial space, without substantially more auto traffic.

up
Voting closed 0

those sound walls are mitigation efforts, there's a legal requirement for them

Two letters: B S There is NOTHING in state or federal environmental law that MANDATES the installation of sound walls. Nor any of the extortion mitigation measures that Somerville is demanding the state ante up for.

up
Voting closed 0

Fine, de facto not de jure.

No transit project through a dense neighborhood is going to be built with sounds walls, the same way no new limited access is going to be built without proper breakdown lanes. Mitigation is an absurdly expensive endeavor, but the CA/T unfortunately set the "no price is too high for mitigation" precedent and it's highly unlikely the State does anything about it - it's a de facto mandate, as self-defeating as that can be.

up
Voting closed 0

There are already diesel freight and commuter rail lines the entire length of this corridor. It also runs in a gully most of the route. Sound walls? For an electric train running next to diesel trains that curretly don't have them?

up
Voting closed 0

For fuck's sake, I'm not in support of the extensive mitigation efforts!, but you're not addressing at all why they're part of the the construction package. It's easy to comment on how egregiously expensive they are - if you're not living beside the line (and fwiw, trolley are a far more frequent and constant level of service than CR). But there are people that do, and those neighborhoods orgs hold significant political power in any threats to stop, delay, hinder the project until they get their wish. Think Hingham, who extorted the MBTA for a decade and managed to forces them to spend $40 million extra for a downtown tunnel or the famous case of Arlington. Would it be nice if the MBTA said suck it to the egregious mitigation efforts or unreasonably neighborhood demands? Of course - but we don't live in that world right now, do we?

up
Voting closed 0

Would it be nice if the MBTA said suck it to the egregious mitigation efforts or unreasonably neighborhood demands? Of course - but we don't live in that world right now, do we?

Why isn't that an option? Frankly, attitudes like "we don't live in that world now" are part of the problem. Instead of stating "we must do this because some narrow minded self centered peolpe demand it", we (including the Governor's MBTA "control board") should be taking a step back and saying "are these things REALLY necessary?" And jsut stating "but it's good for the environment" to justify what is effectively legaized extortion is a tired excuse that should be thrown out.

If these "mitigation" measures are really necessary, the let the proponents of those measures prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. And if said measures principally benefit property owners, then let the property owners pay most of the cost of said measures.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't disagree, but the mitigation efforts are a function of the community meetings process. And hey, I'm an advocate for transit, for funding transit, and I'm looking at Baker with hopeful eyes - I think that he could be (or I really hope that he could be) a version of the old breed of Mass Republicans: willing to make the absolutely necessary public investments, but not going to be taken for a fool on cost overruns. The Pioneer Institute connections worry me a little, not that I abjectly disagree with them, but they bungled their early reports on the the State of T (the fasting growing argument, which was specious and incorrect, flat out - I mean it's not hard to find the glaring inefficiencies, so why lie at all?) That disappointed me, because transit is too important to be a partisan wedge issue and the Moderate Republicans have some good ideas). If Baker can reform that process so that communities can't milk the MBTA and MassDOT for unnecessary projects - great, Baker for Governor for life. But I've been around the block enough to know that process is so hard-wired into these projects (and abused by small, but active "members of the community") that it makes me cynic.

"but it's good for the environment"

Agreed. Transit is better for the environment, but that's not it's major benefit. It unlocks economic development possibilities that are otherwise unattainable, rapid transit is very efficient in Boston (the net cost of heavy rail in only $0.84, and the green line has the highest ridership and fare recovery ration (60%) of any light-rail system in the US,), it's an important (I'd say the most important) input to assuage the social issues caused by a high cost of living and high housing prices - all of those supersede it's "green"-ness, imo.

up
Voting closed 0

comment was directed at the mitigation aspect of the project, not the GLX itself. Have clarified my previous posting.

but the mitigation efforts are a function of the community meetings process

With respect, comments like this smack of the classic "but that's the way we've always done things" mentality so prevelant in government. As I've stated and/or implied in my other comments, in the face of rising costs and increasingly limited resources, perhaps we need to start re-evaluating our attitudes towards environmental laws and what contitutes "necessary" mitigation, instead of continuing to regard "environment" as a magic buzzword that we must always bow down to and cater to every whim that is requested in that regard.

up
Voting closed 0

There has been lobbying for the path for at least 15 years. It can be an important part of moving bicycles off roads. Something I would think you would be in favor of.

up
Voting closed 0

Its probably less expensive to give potential users of the walk/bike path next to the GLX free passes on the GLX than to build the path. That's like the math for California's high speed rail where it was calculated that it was cheaper just to give every resident two round trip airplane tickets per year between LA and SF over the next 30 years than the debt service alone. Basically, neither are financially viable.

But, we could have a toll system for using the GLX path if you still want to keep it.

up
Voting closed 0

When the overruns are either recouped from the contractors, or motorists pay their share, then we will talk.

Tolls. Yep.

up
Voting closed 0

The GLX is required by law. It was a legal condition for the Big Dig, and it's been required sine 1995... with a deadline of 2011 set back in 2005 after the state had been delaying for 10 years. The state has to build it and they have to pay whatever it costs.

The state needs to stop trying to weasel out on its legal commitments. At some point, a judge should order the Governor to spend the money on the GLX, and throw him in jail for contempt if he doesn't.

up
Voting closed 0

More densely populated areas like areas like Mattapan, HP and Rozie Sq should be priority over some suburb like Medford.

up
Voting closed 0

Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

up
Voting closed 0

First, Somerville is denser than Mattapan, Hyde Park, and Roslindale.

Second, the Weld-Cellucci-Baker administration agreed with Pollack's Conservation Law Foundation to do this as part of Big Dig mitigation.

up
Voting closed 0

Somerville is one of the most densely populated cities in the entire U.S., even.

up
Voting closed 0

Scrap it before that 3 billion rises to 4 billion.

up
Voting closed 0

Raises costs and further constrains the market.
Not saying unions are all bad but they DO impact cost in MA.

up
Voting closed 0

Your right. In an era when unions have been decimated by the right wing, the problem is definitely the unions...

up
Voting closed 0

To BPS students and the taxpayers of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

Fine, just tell me where you'd like me to show up, anon.

up
Voting closed 0

Unions decimated by the right wing in MA?

What bizzaro world are you living in?

up
Voting closed 0

The "bizarro" world of actual stats instead of rightwing talking points.

up
Voting closed 0

There are still very strong unions in mass and mbta work is required to by union. So-- not sure what you're saying is relevant?

up
Voting closed 0

Are you defending public sector unions? Unions seem to be as strong as ever in the Massachusetts state and local government, and in all public construction projects.

up
Voting closed 0

The T already goes to Somerville at the centrally located Davis, and Sullivan isn't far away either. This thing was ill-conceived from the start.

up
Voting closed 0

The BERy already goes to Boston at the centrally located Park Street (upper), and North Station isn't far away either. This thing was ill-conceived from the start.

up
Voting closed 0

If the Commuter Rail weren't so wastefully expensive to run and horribly infrequent, it could provide the same benefits as a Green Line extension at a fraction of the cost.

up
Voting closed 0

Diesels operating on either the Lowell or Fitchburg aren't good for the stop spacing of rapid transit. The only way the MBTA-CR can come close to mimicking the ridership profile/utility of a light-rail GLX would be for the MBTA to go full xMU on both those lines with the necessary terminal capacity and likely NSRL That obviously isn't happening, it's light rail or nothing.

up
Voting closed 0

So buy DMUs.

Why is it obviously not happening? Because it would take time and money? Well, the GLX is taking plenty of those.

What exactly are the current diesels good for?

As far as terminal capacity, I suspect typical operating practices in Europe or Japan would allow the current North and South Station platforms to handle trains every 10 to 15 minutes and then some.

up
Voting closed 0

Well no one can snap their fingers and then, poof, Japan-style ops. Takes time.

The DMU market is small, and because it's small, it's expensive. Anything Northside is not going to get a time-separation waiver from the FRA, so we'd have to buy yet more expensive and heavier compliant DMUs. Then you'd have to work them into the schedule, which are NS-destination CR is far more constrained than light rail. You'd probably end up with 15-20 minutes headways compared to 5.

It's not a bad idea, it has major drawbacks so I wouldn't call it a slam dunk, but the real issue here is time. GLX has under-gone all the necessary pre-construction steps, which took over a decade. The MBTA hasn't actually crafted a proper DMU feasibility study - and yet they've been hyping it up - but the study needs to come first, then the maintenance, and general ops considerations, then the procurement procedures, then the negotiations with the Feds about the minutia of certain regulatory waivers the MBTA might want....it's a question of time, GLX, despite the cost overruns, is shovel-ready (and in parts under construction), and will bring far better levels of service.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd strongly support more Red Line-style lines. Especially if they could be built in the same amount of time as it took in 1912, at the same (inflation-adjusted) price.

up
Voting closed 0

In what way is Davis centrally located in Somerville? Or is this some "clever" word play, centrally located... if you look at Somerville, Cambridge, Arlington, and Medford combined?

up
Voting closed 0

Wait until Somerville and Medford sue and the Court orders it to be built (the extension was mandated as Big Dig mitigation). That will be expensive.

up
Voting closed 0

Conservation Law Foundation won the lawsuit forcing the MBTA budget busting expenditures based on pollution projections. Now that there is actual data and pollution is less than before the big dig, they will have a hard case to prove.

up
Voting closed 0

Boston's still an air quality nonattainment zone and the Big Dig can be proven to have made air quality worse... other things coincidentally making air quality better are quite irrelevant. The CLF would win easily, *especially* since the State can be proven to have shown bad faith in previous agreements.

up
Voting closed 0

Livable Streets Alliance tweeted out report from new US Census ACS study. Must be true, so Big Dig with fewer cars and less polluting cars today must mean no damages to Somerville residents. Besides, the Big Dig mostly took vehicles off other routes like Rutherford Ave and McGrath Highway and shifted them to I-93 and didn't add any new traffic.

up
Voting closed 0

That will certainly help air quality issues in Arlington.

up
Voting closed 0

I thought that the obligation to build the transit extensions was already in place, and the CLF lawsuit did not create any new obligation, but merely forced the gummint to honor its existing one?

up
Voting closed 0

$3 billion to extend our slowest form of local transportation to an area that already has plenty of bus service. As if Somerville, Medford, etc. aren't "developed". Suggestion: add a commuter rail platform at Ball Square.

up
Voting closed 0

has nothing to do with improving transit service. It's to bulild a fancy community pathway, and to build huge concrete walls to shield the - gasp - evil transit line from the abutters. Eliminate these UNNECESSARY and FRIVILOUS elements of the project, and you can greatly reduce costs.

up
Voting closed 0

Shield walls are not - the diesel line already operates there without them.

up
Voting closed 0

necesary to build a transit line.

up
Voting closed 0

Masschusetts' taxpayers just got big digged again by the state and its contractors. Seriously, did anyone doubt this would happen?

up
Voting closed 0