Green Line Extension Lechmere to Medford

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GLX threatened in cost crisis. With WSK demaning $890m for work that the State thinks should cost about $500m, they don't have much choice but to make serious threats against the project. It really is terrible what construction costs (& rules) do to limit the amount of infrastructure we can build.

BostonUrbEx wrote:They could easily end the project after this and say, "Look, we replaced some sub-par bridge decks for the commuter rail while improving clearances and drainage for the roadways below!" It's almost zero to do with GLX except for the fact they're replacing unused bridge decks instead of just removing extras.

Posted Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:25 am

Same applies, just add "Millers River Improvements" and "useless piers for GLX flyover ramps with no use."

BostonUrbEx wrote:"useless piers for GLX flyover ramps with no use."

Where's that?

Probably the excessive flyovers and bridges required by the dubious Union Square extension and the ramps
to access the MW facility at "Red Bridge". Not to mention the excessive bridge work for the Community Bike
Path huggers. And commuter rail track relocation here.

D

Arlington wrote:

BostonUrbEx wrote:"useless piers for GLX flyover ramps with no use."

Where's that?

A couple weeks ago it looked like they started assembling the piers, or the bases for them, over in Yard 8/near the former Red Bridge.

Arlington wrote:GLX threatened in cost crisis. With WSK demaning $890m for work that the State thinks should cost about $500m, they don't have much choice but to make serious threats against the project. It really is terrible what construction costs (& rules) do to limit the amount of infrastructure we can build.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Why can't we do it like so many other countries do, and line up all of the permitting/EIS/ROW planning work before handing it all off to the winner of a concessionaire bidding process who proceeds to build the line AND pay for the construction through operating revenues over a certain long-term period (think decades). You may not get as many flashy stations, etc, but I can guarantee you that you'll get trains on rails carrying passengers far more quickly than with the utterly dysfunctional way we do now.

Come to think of it, wasn't that more or less EXACTLY how our railroads and subway systems were built in the first place, a century ago?

^Near-100% bankruptcy among such concessionaires before the end of their terms dampens enthusiasm among investors for such schemes.

Unfortunately the flashy stuff can be the big selling points and therefore dealbreaker(s) in getting such projects going in the first place.

Maybe it's not worth what we're paying for it, but I'd argue that the Union Square station is planned to be located in a dense neighborhood with minimal overlapping transit. It also sets things up for a later extension to Belmont, which could connect with the Red Line at Porter. Serves new destinations and creates network redundancy.

Arlington wrote:^Near-100% bankruptcy among such concessionaires before the end of their terms dampens enthusiasm among investors for such schemes.

But at least the bankrupt concessionaires leave behind physical infrastructure, haha

How about the extra cost for the relocated storage yard? Using Yard 8 would have to be cheaper than buying working businesses, tearing them down and locating the thing further away.

bostontrainguy wrote:How about the extra cost for the relocated storage yard? Using Yard 8 would have to be cheaper than buying working businesses, tearing them down and locating the thing further away.

Yes! Maybe they can save a heap of time and money by putting some yard back in Brickbottom instead of doing condemnations.

If it was a highway project, the cost overruns would not have stopped it or even slowed it down.

Here is the the GLX team presentation made to the Financial Management Control Board Meeting on August 24th.