davis_square | Green Line extension project in increasing jeopardy

Why not add a few cents to the gas tax in Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford, until the extension is completed?

There are 243,263 people in those three cities and the US consumes 392 gallons of gasoline per person (probably less in these three cities due to our public transit system). So a generous estimate is that 95,359,096 gallons of gas are consumed by these three cities per year. If it was all bought in these three cities, to raise 1 billion dollars (the current GLX overrun), you would need a gas tax of at least $10.48/gallon over 1 year or $2.10/gallon over 5 years or $1.05/gallon over 10 years. Given that people would just start buying their gas in other cities, this seems like a plan that cannot possibly work.

Edited 2015-12-10 17:31 (UTC)

The MBTA/MassDOT just posted an official announcement.

No new construction on the GLX will be commenced. The remainder of entire project will be put out for re-bid. :(

Here's the actual press release. This actually seems promising to me: my understanding of the situation is that the CM/GC process, as it was implemented for the GLX, essentially allowed the contractor to name their price with no competition or negotiation, so what this is really saying is "we want to start the bid process over with something actually sensible". The press release language about "aggressively adjusting the design" bugs me; as proposed, $2-3 billion already seemed incredibly expensive for laying new rail on existing rights-of-way (the $2 billion number was already at the top of the range for comparable recent US projects) and I'd like to believe that the original design could be completed for much less money. This isn't saying "the project is dead", quite yet, and I'm guessing they want to avoid saying that as long as they can to keep the federal money they have.

Last night at City Hall, there was a public hearing on inclusionary zoning, with most speakers in favor but a few (inc. from mayor's office) noting that increasing the inclusionary zoning rate might freeze housing development. One of the last speakers (it might have been Matt Mclouglin but honestly I don't remember) made the excellent and well-received zing that our big worry about the housing market freezing shouldn't be from increasing the inclusionary zoning rate, but from continued uncertainty over the potential scuttling of the GLX.

Just something to think about.

Actually, another thing to think about: would the scuttling of the GLX "solve" the affordable housing crisis? Sure, it would be horrible for commercial development as well as environmental mitigation, but putting that aside for a moment... if there's no GLX, suddenly all those investment properties would no longer be such good investments. And those of us who've been living here quite happily without the GLX would be able to continue to do so, and maybe would be able to afford all those luxury units that had been built to court GLX commuters. I guess the question is whether no GLX would result in a dystopian wasteland of luxury units unaffordable for those who want to live here and unwanted by those who can afford them (as I've mostly assumed til this moment), or if possibly the end of the GLX dream would pierce the bubble in such a way that prices would fall and benefit those remaining for whom our current level of public transit is good enough. Hmm. Thoughts?

Gee, it's fun to be able to publicly hypothesize on controversial topics now that I'm an also-ran. :)

Exactly; the bid process, as it existed, was totally insane. They had somehow agreed to a process that allowed the contractor to set its own price and change that price while the work was being done without any negotiation. It shouldn't be shocking that the costs of the GLX were skyrocketing while the work was being done extraordinarily slowly.

I think the city's smart to re-bid the project to give it a chance before giving up. They were being terribly screwed.

Edited 2015-12-10 21:43 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either of you. I completely agree that the price tag was pretty insane for a 4ish mile extension on a mostly existing right of way. It seems too many pigs were at the trough for this project as it was planned. I would love to see it built, not in the least because it would directly benefit me, but I am getting more pessimistic as the years drag on.

At the very minimum this redesign, rebidding, and construction freeze will most likely add several years onto the completion time line. I do hope they can get the costs under control and ultimately salvage the project though.

I'd like to have both, but I want to live in a city with great public transportation more than I want to live in a city with abundant affordable housing. Otherwise I would have stayed in Upstate New York.

I hope this doesn't sound harsh, but given that not too many people have proposed demolishing the Davis Square MBTA station to lower Davis Square rents, I don't think it's actually controversial.

Sorry that there weren't enough "burn the yuppies" voters to propel you to victory.

Edited 2015-12-11 02:03 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Cambridge candidate who wanted to bring in more homeless people to bring housing prices down.

There is a logic to it: if more people want to live in your area, then you have exactly three choices: you can build more housing for them, accept people being priced out, or do something to make people not want to live in your area.

Since laws and politics here are pretty hostile to new housing, that leaves soaring rents or self-sabotage as the only options.

And more people do want to live here. The GLX might be part of it but wouldn't explain e.g. Davis rents going up 20% a year. Lots of people are moving back into urban areas in general. Millennials don't want to drive as much. Cambridge students and workers spill over into Somerville.

MA, Boston, and Cambridge all went up 12-13% in population between 1990 and 2013; Somerville went up only 3%. I suspect that difference reflects Somerville zoning more than anything else.

I don't think failed public works projects are going to fix affordable housing issues.

Anyone who can afford a 600k+ condo in Somerville isn't going to be deterred by $6-10 Uber fares to get into the city.

People who rely on public transit are the ones suffering here, and they're the same ones that need affordable housing. The farther public transit extends, the more viable farther suburbs become as livable locations for the middle and lower-middle classes.

Losing the alderman election is no excuse for becoming a vindictive idiot on Livejournal.

I wish the citizens such as yourself who actually understand the simple supply/demand dynamics would speak up to alderman. My impression is that all of the alderman are lacking in rudimentary economics education, and only the mayor has a grasp on addressing the supply issue. Meanwhile the alderman are trying to stop development and in the same breath complaining about high prices and trying to paint the mayor as being in the pockets of developers in order to further their political ambitions.

Pretty frustrating, like trying to have a conversation with my in laws that yes climate change is real.

I share your frustration. I'm a Cambridge resident and voter though, so I assume my voice carries little weight with your aldermen.

Ironically, the densest city in New England is something of a desert for good transit. No trains except Davis, and the Orange Line running just along the other side (but with no stations *in* Somerville until Assembly opened.) Of the 14 "high value"[1] bus lines, none touch Somerville, while 5 run in Cambridge.

[1] I don't know the T's definition, but it's the same as my list of buses that ostensibly run at least every 20 minutes at all times, not counting post-midnight. That was lowering my standards from 10 minutes, but hey, "world class city" cough cough.

My guess is that this is a negotiating technique to apply pressure on somebody to cut their price. After all, if they wanted to cancel it, they would (as long as they haven't committed to pay someone to build it). Most likely it's to tell someone "Get reasonable, because we can still cut the whole thing out." whereas as long as the contractor believes that the MBTA can't back out of it, they have no incentive to reduce the price they've quoted.

People who rely on public transit are the ones suffering here, and they're the same ones that need affordable housing.

From what I've seen in greater Camberville, reasonable-to-good public transit is actually one of the big draws of this corner of the world. Ask a suburban Californian who rides "urban buses", and then ride the 87/88 around here: you see a reasonable slice of technology professionals going to software jobs in East Cambridge, and the T bus clientele is very different from what a suburbanite would expect.

"Affordable housing" is also a technical term. One local mechanism I've seen for getting it is giving developers subsidies in exchange for new units that are deed-restricted to only be sold to people who earn less than 80% of median income. I feel like those units sell for far below market rates: these two units (both between Union and Inman; one 2br/2ba limited to 80% median income, one 1br/1ba limited to 110% median income) are both selling for around $200K, but other properties in the area (according to Zillow) are vastly more than that; even another unit in the 432 Norfolk St. building sold a year ago for $311K.

The short of it is, I think better transit will make the area more expensive, not less, and it will result in even fewer properties being naturally available around that $200K "affordable" price point.

Green Line extension project in increasing jeopardy

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

dystopia or no? a guessing game!

no subject

no subject

RE: dystopia or no? a guessing game!

Re: dystopia or no? a guessing game!

RE: dystopia or no? a guessing game!

RE: Re: dystopia or no? a guessing game!

Re: dystopia or no? a guessing game!

Re: dystopia or no? a guessing game!

no subject

RE: dystopia or no? a guessing game!