By adamg on Mon., 8/24/2015 - 2:54 pm
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.
Topics:
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
So at 8.7 billion in assessed
By KBHer
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 7:23pm
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,
They can use a 30-year bond
By Markk02474
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 3:32am
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.
I'm calculating on a 30-year
By KBHer
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 4:19am
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...
Asking Somerville to come up
By anon
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 12:42pm
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.
those sound walls are
By roadman
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 2:44pm
Two letters: B S There is NOTHING in state or federal environmental law that MANDATES the installation of sound walls. Nor any of the
extortionmitigation measures that Somerville is demanding the state ante up for.Fine, de facto not de jure.
By KBHer
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 12:18am
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.
Do you realize something?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 2:42am
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?
Don't patronize me swirls
By KBHer
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 6:40am
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?
Would it be nice if the MBTA
By roadman
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 2:43pm
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.
I don't disagree, but the
By KBHer
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 1:43pm
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.
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.
My "good for the environment"
By roadman
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 2:58pm
comment was directed at the mitigation aspect of the project, not the GLX itself. Have clarified my previous posting.
[quote]but the mitigation efforts are a function of the community meetings process[/quote]
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.
"Afterthought bike/walk path"
By downtown-anon
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 6:27am
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.
Off of bikes and on the train
By Markk02474
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 2:31pm
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.
Pay for the Big Dig first
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 2:48am
When the overruns are either recouped from the contractors, or motorists pay their share, then we will talk.
Tolls. Yep.
The GLX is required by law.
By Nathanael N.
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 9:08pm
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.
Who cares?
By anon
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 3:50pm
More densely populated areas like areas like Mattapan, HP and Rozie Sq should be priority over some suburb like Medford.
People who live there
By Scratchie
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:53pm
Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.
Two things
By Waquiot
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 6:41pm
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.
Somerville is one of the most
By anon
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 8:57am
Somerville is one of the most densely populated cities in the entire U.S., even.
So glad the Olympics jumped ship
By Rick C
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 3:55pm
Scrap it before that 3 billion rises to 4 billion.
Union labor anyone?
By Just a hunch
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 3:57pm
Raises costs and further constrains the market.
Not saying unions are all bad but they DO impact cost in MA.
Your right. In an era when
By MattL
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:54pm
Your right. In an era when unions have been decimated by the right wing, the problem is definitely the unions...
Tell that
By anon
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 5:07pm
To BPS students and the taxpayers of Boston.
Fine, just tell me where you
By MattL
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 10:17pm
Fine, just tell me where you'd like me to show up, anon.
Unions decimated by the right
By anon
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 5:11pm
Unions decimated by the right wing in MA?
What bizzaro world are you living in?
The "bizarro" world of actual
By MattL
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 10:23pm
The "bizarro" world of actual stats instead of rightwing talking points.
Except
By Just a hunch
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 5:11pm
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?
Are you defending public
By anon
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 8:40am
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.
I never saw the point of this Green Line extenson
By anon
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:27pm
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.
1912: I never saw the point of this Red Line construction
By Saul
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:40pm
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.
If the Commuter Rail weren't
By anon
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:57pm
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.
Diesels operating on either
By KBHer
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 8:08pm
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.
So buy DMUs.
By anon
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 2:12pm
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.
Well no one can snap their
By KBHer
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 12:14am
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.
I'd strongly support more Red
By anon
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 2:14pm
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.
Have a look at a map, buddy
By anon
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 7:52am
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?
They think that's expensive?
By Neal
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:39pm
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.
Good luck with that
By Markk02474
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 4:52pm
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.
Boston's still an air quality
By Nathanael N.
Mon, 08/24/2015 - 9:10pm
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.
Haven't you heard? Fewer people are driving
By Markk02474
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 3:49am
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.
A good muzzle with a filter
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 2:45am
That will certainly help air quality issues in Arlington.
Fill me in on the history?
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 8:45am
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?
$3 billion to extend our
By Chris77
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 7:29am
$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.
A large part of that $3 billion
By roadman
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 11:03am
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.
The pathway is necessary
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 2:46am
Shield walls are not - the diesel line already operates there without them.
Nope, the pathway is NOT
By roadman
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 10:27am
necesary to build a transit line.
A big-digging
By anon
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 7:54am
Masschusetts' taxpayers just got big digged again by the state and its contractors. Seriously, did anyone doubt this would happen?
Pages