Ball Square proposal, then and now. See it larger.
MBTA and MassDOT staff today presented plans for a $2.3-billion Green Line Extension that would keep the originally planned seven stations but would eliminate amenities such as fully enclosed waiting rooms, escalators, fare gates and, at several stations, elevators and stairs.
The proposal would also cut in half the size of a maintenance facility - and shorten the length of a proposed community path alongside the tracks. Several bridges that had been originally slated for complete replacement will instead stay as is, due to changes in track alignments.
A key part of the savings would be roughly $204 million in the fees paid to contractors and consultants to oversee the work.
Last week, Somerville and Cambridge officials vowed to seek local approval to pour $75 million into the extension to keep it afloat - including money already committed by the developer of the North Point project towards relocating and improving the Lechmere station.
Even with the savings, the project is still roughly $300 million above what was once supposed to be a $1.92 billion cost - $1 billion of which would come from the federal government. Staffers suggested looking for fill the gap with contributions from local businesses that would benefit from the new trolley line and from the city of Medford.
GLX presentation - Slideshow, highlights changes to account for savings (3.4M PDF)
GLX report - More details information (6M PDF)
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Eliminating Fare Gates — Oh Yes, That Makes Sense
By Elmer
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:41pm
[sup] ( Better yet, just eliminate fares entirely and make the Ⓣ free to ride. )[/sup]
Simple solution is to require
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:52pm
Simple solution is to require the (future development by others) to include an enclosed accessible lobby with faregates. Let private developers pick up the tab for improving the line once basic service has been established to attract new development.
POP FTW
By Dani B.
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:01pm
Was just in Seattle and took a couple rides on the Link and the First Hill Streetcar. Both of these new systems use proof of payment (POP) as does the Sounder commuter rail system and the T seriously needs to consider switching to it. Apparently they only have an evasion rate of ~3% which I would guess is similar if not better than evasion rates on the surface level green line. Any expansion and future fare system should be built around POP instead of old antiquated forms of fare collection.
ha
By Saul
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:06pm
Do you seriously expect any real consideration to be given to POP from the same folks who bring us the moronic "Fare is Fair™" operations on the commuter rail?
The FMCB has made public
By KBHer
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:02pm
The FMCB has made public statements in favor of POP or a POP-like system for the next generation of fare collection. Obviously implementation of these priorities is highly suspect (after all, a rapid transit/high-speed trolley extension through Somerville was proposed in the early 20th century), but there's a sound economy to be gained by making the switch. The political process could very well be: 1. promote the idea that fare evasion is hurting the system, 2. pass off solutions like the "Fare is Fair" as inadequate stop-gaps, 3. make the argument that something must be done™ and then, 4. implement POP as a solution rather than an upgrade.
Political process actually
By anon
Tue, 05/10/2016 - 7:42am
Political process actually likely to work:
1) Stress that POP punishes evaders much more harshly, allude to tickets covering MBTA expenses sometime in the future
2) Promise that police unions will get to do the ticketing, allude to unlimited overtime for them
3) Hammer in the fact over and over that a quick functioning T means less car traffic for legislators to compete with in the morning.
Its easier to come up with a
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:14pm
Its easier to come up with a list of light rail systems that dont operate on PoP. PoP is the norm.
Given the fear of POP...
By octr202
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:18pm
...I half expect them to institute left-hand running after Lechmere in order to put the front (farebox) doors on the correct side of the platforms.
One of the most economically
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:45pm
One of the most economically prosperous regions in the world.
But we cant afford shelters and escalators.
No problem, if it rains, the riders should just take a limo to work
There will be shelters
By adamg
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:47pm
Sorry if I was too vague!
What they're eliminating (except at Lechmere, I think) is the idea of a station akin to the Green Line stops downtown - an enclosed space with fare gates and all that. Instead, Extension riders will get what riders on all the other lines already have outside downtown: Bus shelters.
Because of course that works so well
By Stevil
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:53pm
And it never snows or gets cold around here.
(not directed at you Adam - not shooting the messenger - just tired of the morons that dreamed up the ridiculous message in the first place).
As the poster - said - how can this be so outrageously expensive that it's unaffordable to one of the wealthiest metropolitan regions in the world. Something's seriously wrong if that's really true.
Because we do not charge
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:54pm
Because we do not charge enough for rail service that is how.
Really?
By Saul
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:56pm
Really? Tell us, then, how much should a ride on the Green Line cost? $3? $5? $10?
It should cover the majority
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:00pm
It should cover the majority of costs to operate the line, currently T fares do not even cover salaries. That is outrageous. A 5$ rush hour fare would not be out of line and would remain the cost leader.
I agree. I'm all in favor of
By Saul
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:04pm
I agree. I'm all in favor of T riders paying for their rides.
As soon as drivers pay the full cost of operating several tons of metal machinery on public roads, and as soon as city residents pay several hundred dollars a month for parking their cars on said public roads.
And surely drivers benefit too from a well-functioning mass transit system, no? So I say they chip in their fare share too.
Deal?
What a moronic statement by someone who seemingly has no clue about how much general taxes subside drivers.
I am good with that. If the
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:06pm
I am good with that. If the gas tax solely went to fund the roads and the gas tax is inadequate it should be increased.
However the reality is the gas tax is siphoned to fund other things here in MA.
One should not assume they know anothers opinion as you did mine. Use fees should cover use costs.
We need to shut down the
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:09pm
We need to shut down the schools immediately. You know those freeloading kids arent paying a DIME of the costs?
And dont get me started on parks. The fact that they arent all encircled by fare gates makes my blood boil. Do you think that grass is free?
We charge use fees on roads
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:16pm
We charge use fees on roads and transit methods for a reason. We do not charge use fees for schools for a reason.
Are you really arguing that use fees covering the services costs are unreasonable? Should the T be free? Should we not raise the gas tax to cover the cost of building and maintaining roads?
Who is going to pay for all of these things?
Would you like to have a serious discussion or would you rather debate strawmen? I can debate strawmen too if you like.
We do?
By Saul
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:18pm
We do? Did I miss the toll booths on 93 and 128 and Storrow Drive? Have I neglected all these years to send in the annual statement with my car's odometer readings so that I can pay my tax that's directly proportional to how much I have driven?
Or are you suggesting that transit riders should somehow pay close to the full cost of the service they receive while drivers continue to get a mostly free ride?
Are you familiar with the MA
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:20pm
Are you familiar with the MA gas tax?
Mostly free ride base on what exactly? IF the MA gas tax is not sufficient to cover costs (that has not been demonstrated) it should be raised.
Oh that PRECIOUS gas tax!
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:21pm
It pays for about 30% of your driving. If you ignore the costs of your pollution and your need for emergency services, etc.
READ THIS AND LEARN SOMETHING: http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-an...
Do you really want the cost
By Saul
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:24pm
Do you really want the cost of gas to reflect the true costs of driving?
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/01/the-real-re...
And besides, why should the cost of driving be even pegged to how much gasoline one consumes? As cars become more and more fuel-efficient, is the wear-and-tear they cause to roadways and the urban real estate they occupy in traffic and while parked getting any cheaper?
Are T fares pegged to the cost of fuel?
Do you really want the cost
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:28pm
Do you really want the cost of gas to reflect the true costs of driving?
YES.
And based on MA revenue numbers (09) we are not that far off. About 60mil underfunded. How many of those dollars do not go directly to the roads is the real question.
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy2009h1/exec2_09/hbudbr...
How Do Electric Cars Pay Their Fair Share?
By Elmer
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:46pm
How do you account for electrics, hybrids and other vehicles that get high miles-per-gallon?
Otherwise, you're shifting the tax burden to people who can only afford older, low mileage vehicles.
Do you think that's fair?
Gas taxes will likely have to
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:56pm
Gas taxes will likely have to shift to direct per mile use fees. Is it fair currently? No. Should it be fixed? Yes.
Simple Physics
By BostonDog
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:28pm
The heavier something is, the more resources it takes to power it and the more damage it does to the roads. A bike does almost no damage whereas a big, loaded truck will cause potholes. The bike uses no gas, the truck (even a new efficient one) uses lots of gas.
Passenger cars are in the middle but your normal Prius isn't heavy enough to cause a tremendous amount of damage so the current fuel tax is fair. Electric vehicles can be taxed the same way via their charging apparatus.
Fuel taxes make sense. What doesn't make sense is how low their are, especially considering the massive discount consumers are currently getting on gasoline.
I take no major issue with
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:42pm
I take no major issue with anything you write. The size issue is largely made up for in fuel efficiency deviation however with the advent of electric etc a new tax model is needed.
And what are those reasons?
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:18pm
And what are those reasons? Id love to hear your justification on why parks should be free but transit should be at cost.
Should the T be free? No. The reason is because free encourages abuse. The T is space constrained during peak periods, so charging a fare reducing the incidence of joy rides which take up space for no reason.
But theres no reason the fare should be more than $1.
So people in other parts of
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:21pm
So people in other parts of the state should subsidize a regionally specific service why?
The world and state does not revolve around your daily commute.
We subsidize their roads
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:23pm
Jackass.
Or do you really think that they all came up with 60 million dollars to fix their bridges out of their own pockets?
Silly jackass.
Get your car off the road now
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:24pm
Unless you want to actually pay the full cost of your use of the commons, that is.
Are you illiterate? More than
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:57pm
Are you illiterate? More than once I have stated in this very thread I supported increasing the gas tax.
I dont have kids. WTF am I
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:25pm
I dont have kids. WTF am I subsidizing some little shits trying to learn algebra?
Debating a strawman again?
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:25pm
Debating a strawman again?
You keep saying that but you
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:28pm
You keep saying that but you clearly dont understand what it means.
The fact is, youre clearly one of those me-first libertarians.
If its a service you use, like a road or park, then it damn well should be paid for by all means possible. But if its something you personally dont see a direct benefit from, then it should be abolished.
In other words, there is no point in considering this conversation. Im sure my dog understand a functional society better than you do.
Hang on I am a ME first
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:31pm
Hang on I am a ME first libertarian calling for the roads I drive on to have a use fee that reflects the costs of building them? lol.
You however are a noble we the people type, demanding someone else pay for your service... Got it.
"If its a service you use,
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:32pm
"If its a service you use, like a road or park, then it damn well should be paid for by all means possible. "
I have repeatedly stated I would support an increase in the gas tax. Why are you debating a strawman? Because I sure did not say that.
I guess we'll never know what
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:47pm
I guess we'll never know what the reason is when you said "We do not charge use fees for schools for a reason. "
So ignoring my point and
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:53pm
So ignoring my point and instead want to debate schools? No retraction on your completely false claims wrt my positions?
We do not charge a use fee for schools to ensure they are accessible to all. A use fee on rail does not do so in fact it does the opposite. A higher use fee allows for more dollars to be available to support the transit of those in need while also increasing the services available to all.
If the Green line extension came alongside higher fares the cost of the program would go down and it would be approved MUCH faster.
Your argument is seriously
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:57pm
Your argument is seriously that doubling the fare does not impact how accessible transit is?
Really?
Really?
An increase in revenue
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:00pm
An increase in revenue increases the dollars available to subsidize rides of the poor and needy. Complicated subject for you?
An increase in the fare also helps ensure rapid approval of NEW transit methods INCREASING ACCESSIBILITY to all.
Why can you not stay on track?
Wow
By aldos
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:46pm
I think this is the most indented comment I've ever seen on here. I wonder how deep you can get before it stops indenting.
I don't know...
By Neal
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:50pm
Perhaps we'll just have to keep posting until we find out.
Small words are small.
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:51pm
Small words are small.
Adorable!
By Elmer
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 6:24pm
It's just not fair!
By Camberville
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:51pm
Some users aren't paying their share of the UHub commenting tax, causing it to indent even more at the expense of those who don't comment as often.
"But if its something you
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:34pm
"But if its something you personally dont see a direct benefit from, then it should be abolished."
STRAWMAN
Who should pay for the costs
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:25pm
Who should pay for the costs if not the users of the programs?
Everyone...
By BlackKat
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:33pm
...who COULD potentially use said programs. In short, everyone.
Great, so when they use the
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:48pm
Great, so when they use the program charge the market rate. Just as if they use the roads the market rate should be charged.
Infrastructure Is A Right Not A Privilege
By BlackKat
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 4:14pm
Just like heath care and education should be [but often are not in our backwards nation] using public transit should be virtually free [but subsist heavily on tax dollars]. You're not supposed to make money or even break even when running public transit. You're supposed to rely on taxes to meet the budget.
"Infrastructure Is A Right
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 6:53pm
"Infrastructure Is A Right Not A Privilege"
That is hilarious. SO do western mass have a cause to sue?
They get plenty of infrastructure
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 05/10/2016 - 7:34am
Considering how many people live there and how much that region pays in taxes, they get more than their fare share of infrastructure.
IT'S A SNAKE EATING IT'S OWN TAIL
By Marco
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:43pm
I stopped using the T because ethe service was total shit (about 2002)and getting worse ( a short time late Grabowskis [sp?] came out and admited they cut service when they were telling people they hadn't). The service was shit because they wern't taking in enough money. they don't take in enough money because there isn't enough ridership and the classic fre evasion scapegoat.
The circle continues, on and on.
People can all yella t each other and point the blame here or there, or cite this or that as the reasons why, raise this tax, double that fare.
The absolute bottom line is that the T is fucked, and state needs to look at that fact square in the eye and say it's gonna fix, and take the financial hit for it JUST THIS ONCE to right the ship.
Get the existing T infastructure up to snuff, finish the GL extension, eat the losses, and then focus on MAINTAINING what is there, grandfather the pensions, create new contracts with the unions and whatnot, and make the system VIABLE and SOLVENT.
Everyone will piss and moan, what else is new? The suburbs and the rural towns will be pissed, what else is new? The fact is that Transit and Energy are the two top priorities the commonweath should be focused on, and they intersect at many junctions. The MBTA has many rights of way and a lot of land holdings throughout the state. Why are there no windmills at any of these places? Built into their T stations? Why isn't every MBTA building covered in solar panels? They could invest in decreasing their costs over the long run. Had they done it 10-15 years ago (the tech was still available then) then those windmills/solar panels today would be paying profits already! Delayed returns is no excuse, even delayed returns are RETURNS, not just throwing money away.
Why does every T station I go to have either no vendors or a boarded up old spot where a vendor USED to be. T, rent out your space for cryin out loud! The same goes for the city, there are many avenues of revenue they are not actively pursuing and instead its "Raise fares! Raise taxes!" Cripes, work what you've got first! They're not even TRYING.
How much joy do you get from
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:46pm
How much joy do you get from riding an overloaded train?
Do you really want people to commute by means other than the T at rush hour, because the T is too expensive?
It isn't the gas tax, silly
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:13pm
Check some actual data sources - what you pay into the system, and what you get out as a car owner are waaaaayyyy different.
You pay in 60 cents, and get a dollar in services in MA.
Pay your share already!
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/1...
So raise the tax. Why are you
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:36pm
So raise the tax. Why are you assuming I am against it.
Your numbers are a bit off. The gas tax is underfunded but not by much.
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy2009h1/exec2_09/hbudbr...
Some sweet reality for you
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:16pm
http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-an...
Here you go. 60mil
By DPM
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:39pm
Here you go. 60mil underfunded. Raise the tax to close the gap. Again operating on the faulty assumption I oppose an increase in the gas tax.
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy2009h1/exec2_09/hbudbr...
Roads aren't all of it
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:53pm
You should also pay a surcharge on gas for climate change adaptations and air pollution health effects.
Those half million climate refugees in MA alone by mid century aren't going to relocate themselves, nor will those roads rebuild themselves when the water comes.
That's not the reality
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:38pm
100% nope. Gasoline taxes and user fees pay only half of state and local road spending.
Data from 2014
By Ari O
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:37pm
Fares of $82m, costs of $166m. That's pretty much majority (it was higher in 2013—90/150—so may be a reporting issue).
Prefab bus shelters with
By anon
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:10pm
Prefab bus shelters with electric heaters are way cheaper (and more effective at providing shelter) than giant glass boxes and platforms with full canopies.
As a frequent Washington Silver Line bus user...
By Mjolnir
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 4:11pm
Bull on the "more effective at providing shelter". Cheaper, sure, but this is one of those situations you get what you pay for.
The structures at Silver Line
By anon
Tue, 05/10/2016 - 10:13am
The structures at Silver Line Washington Street stops are custom-built art projects, not shelters. Besides being way overpriced, it's obvious at first glance that they're useless since they have no walls.
I was suggesting something like this: http://www.duo-gard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04...
They're very helpful for passengers. That's why so many (other) cities have them.
The red, blue, and orange
By Trump-Baker 2016
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 1:53pm
The red, blue, and orange line have more than bus shelters outside of downtown. The green line stations outside of downtown cause delays and result in lots of lost fares because they require on board payment, why replicate something that is causing lots of problems elsewhere on the T?
Interesting...
By octr202
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:03pm
That the T continues to push back against proof-of-payment fare collection elsewhere, but is proposing center platforms w/o faregates. Those two things don't really go together.
The Costco bus shelters arent
By J
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:07pm
The Costco bus shelters arent anyone's idea of good. One of the reasons people prefer rail to bus is because they associate bus service with abysmal comfort. Waiting outside, in the snow, with biting wind, and 2 feet of roof with nothing on the sides? Why would anyone want to own a car with this as the alternative?
Is Baker one of those "run it like a business" types?
Because I cant imagine any successful business putting "customer comfort" last on the list of priorities.
It would be like cutting A/C from the budget when you're building a mall. Yeah, Im sure the cost savings will lead to much success.
Cost cutting is important. But cutting amenities that build ridership is foolish.
And as long as the Silver Line on Washington St...
By octr202
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 2:21pm
...isn't the model, you could build plenty of nice, functional canopies for relatively short dollars. Me thinks the elimination of anything that smacks of a roof is done mostly to emphasize how austere the new plans look.
Hostile Architecture sucks
By Mjolnir
Mon, 05/09/2016 - 4:17pm
The austere, hostile designs of the T's benches, bus shelters, Silver Line canopies, and sometimes actual stations (particularly the new generation of Commuter Rail) do a disservice to everyone and is embarrassing. They don't make 'em like Allston Depot anymore - at least, in this state.
Pages
Add comment