Chelsea Creek Rails-to-Tollway

[Arlington]

I didn't know this was so far along-and invitation to bids was issued June 21 (Streetsblog PDF)

Personally, I think it is a good idea...gets a SL1A/Busway built (and a parallel bike path) in exchange for letting private parties build a tollway.

Why Is the T Trying to Turn an East Boston Rail Corridor Into a Private Roadway?

Aloisi is probably right that there needs to be more transparency--just from the fact that it is this far along and I can't recall it being discussed here or anywhere.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That is the dumbest, most fucking useless idea ever. The HIGHWAY is the truck route.


I can see selling that stub of ROW as the out-of-service portion of the East Boston Branch with active Pan Am rights stops at the Global Petroleum loading docks, where there's a decent-sized freight yard under the weeds. The stub to Chelsea St. was only retained for filling a long lashed-up string of fuel tankers...but that's purely optional with the yard there. But this proposal is the worst possible use of deepwater dock space.

 

[Arlington]

^ ?

1) it seems like the property owners along 1A would like a less industrial 1A to go along with the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs. It also seems like we're going to get more commercial and residential abutters who will generate more trips throughout the day than the oil tanks. It seems that 1A has a future that is more like a surface boulevard.

2) I imagine that everybody who has to suffer through drawbridge openings would be opposed to additional big water shipping here. I don't see where the political or economic support for using this shoreline for big shipping would come from.

3) instead it seems to me that all of East Boston is going to become more gentrified and residential and less gritty. This might argue for a complete recreational reclamation of the waterfront but it seems like a bike path would be enough.

4) I think we need better roadway and network redundancy. This fits the bill and because it is a toll road it won't induce as much traffic as a free Road would.

 

[millerm277]

1) it seems like the property owners along 1A would like a less industrial 1A to go along with the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs. It also seems like we're going to get more commercial and residential abutters who will generate more trips throughout the day than the oil tanks. It seems that 1A has a future that is more like a surface boulevard.

While I'm happy to be corrected, I have seen no expectations that the oil tanks are going anywhere, they're in every render. I'm rather skeptical that Irving Oil has any intentions of ever giving up it's only US terminal.

The site plans for Suffolk Downs do not add any new curb cuts to 1A that I see, although I'm guessing Tomasello Way will likely become a light.

I think the future for 1A remains as a highway, not as something becoming a surface boulevard.

 

[Vagabond]

^ ?

1) it seems like the property owners along 1A would like a less industrial 1A to go along with the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs.

There are a few things in the article that stick out:
1) A privately-owned bypass road
2) Plans for a "massive new parking garage at 440/480 McClellan Highway" - anybody know who this is for?
3) "Language could allow new MBTA bus services to use any privately-built bypass roads along the corridor" (I think this the 450?)

So we're taking trucks and busses off overly congested road, a new parking garage with access to the airport, and a bus lane with the potential for an extension of the Silver line to either Suffolk downs and/or to Revere "center"? The biggest opponents will be from the environmental front.

 

[whighlander]

I didn't know this was so far along-and invitation to bids was issued June 21

Personally, I think it is a good idea...gets a SL1A/Busway built (and a parallel bike path) in exchange for letting private parties build a tollway.

This is the classic example of people popping off without a clue as to what is the nature of that to which they are reacting

Specifically -- I looked at the RFP -- we are talking about old unused track just a bit over a mile not really connected to anything now

On the other hand the ROW runs very near to what will be eventually another South Boston Seaport development in scale -- and one with a difficult access at present

Note further that the agreement in question doesn't allow the developer to build buildings on the ROW just to pave it and use if for vehicles -- potentially of benefit to expanded Silver Line Service

 

[Arlington]

^ used "rails" in the rails-to-trails sense, fully aware there happen to not actually be any usable iron in this stretch, sorry you felt misled.

As far as I can tell nobody (else) popped off about building buildings on the ROW.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

^ ?

1) it seems like the property owners along 1A would like a less industrial 1A to go along with the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs. It also seems like we're going to get more commercial and residential abutters who will generate more trips throughout the day than the oil tanks. It seems that 1A has a future that is more like a surface boulevard.

1A is a highway. It transitions from a real expressway to a substandard tarted-up turnpike thing that's gradually had its curb cuts reduced. How exactly does oil tanks-ville become an "urban boulevard" when it's 85% expressway already? That's a very disingenuous misinterpretation of what haul roads are for. Haul roads bypass what are already urban boulevards...like Southie Haul keeping terminal trucks off Broadway and E. 1st, the existing Eastie Haul keeping trucks off the mixed-use part of Chelsea St. and Bennington when worming their way onto 1A. Since Eastie Haul is mainly a mechanism for reaching 1A-the-highway, what exactly is being accomplished by re-designating that infastructure as "urban boulevard"??? It's a naked capacity grab...when we do not need any more induced demand add-a-lanes ANYWHERE in Greater Boston.

Finally, what exactly is going to "urbanize" 1A. Out to 145 in Revere it's:

• A tank farm that isn't going anywhere and would be hugely damaging to the local economy if it took Boston Metro's largest supplier of wholesale gasoline elsewhere.
• An air freight warehousing complex, which by very nature needs to be next to Logan.
• Rental car overflow lots, which also have to be next to Logan.
• 2 large hotels that only exist by being next to Logan.
• From what I can tell: several tiny auto sales & repair huts, a gas station, a Dunkies, a couple small industrial vendors.

Now what's a common thread amongst the mixed-use developments that are close enough but not on 1A?

• The residential area off Saratoga St. is set back from the highway 50 ft. on a cul-de-sac frontage.
• Courtyard Marriott is set back 50 ft. with primary entrance on a side street.
• Hilton is set back 85 ft. with primary entrance on Boardman St.
• Boardman St. residential is set back 200 ft. with a parkland barrier.
• BHA-Orient Heights at Waldemar Ave. is set back with a 150-300 ft. parkland barrier.
• Suffolk Downs is set 2000 ft. back on an un-lined access road with a 500 ft. parkland buffer between the highway and first developable parcel.
• Revere trailer park is set back off the 145 exit ramp.

There is nothing here that can be knit into an "urban boulevard". 60 years of managing this as a highway has set most development behind buffers for livability's sake AND in anticipation of an upgrade to full expressway standards with exits and city-street frontages linking it up. None of the canvas that's there to work with is the least bit compatible with a "boulevard".

2) I imagine that everybody who has to suffer through drawbridge openings would be opposed to additional big water shipping here. I don't see where the political or economic support for using this shoreline for big shipping would come from.

Boo-hoo. Boston has only taken massive strides in the last 50 years to consolidate all the waterways that used to have insignificant traces of water freight--Charles/Broad Canal @ Kendall, Ft. Point Channel, Mystic River to Medford, Malden River, Neponset River, Saugus River--and reorganize the system with integrated Inner Harbor planning to purge the rivers of disruptive, low-margin, low-capacity traffic. Now it's all been stacked to 2 major inland terminals--Fore River and Chelsea River--which have been dredged for high-capacity deliveries.

That may be very inconvenient for those who have to sit through a daily bridge opening on 3A or Chelsea St., but would you rather have those delays happening at random throughout the city? Would you rather MassHighway's budget get chewed up by far greater quantities of oft-used drawbridges that have to be maintained? Or would you rather imagine self as God of Massport and "ban" this stuff from the city so we pay some of the highest gas prices in the nation for the privilege of shaving 5 minutes off a commute?

Mildly unattractive things and industrial infrastructure have to go somewhere. This was one of those designated-and-planned places. We get much further exploiting the resource as it was designed if we want the money to have nice things. The fallacy of the belief that you can just "ban" your way to prosperity and aesthetic pleasure is that it kicks out the means for getting what you desire.

3) instead it seems to me that all of East Boston is going to become more gentrified and residential and less gritty. This might argue for a complete recreational reclamation of the waterfront but it seems like a bike path would be enough.

Eastie's gentrification is SOUTH and EAST of here where the people live. See #1. There is absolutely nothing to string gentrification together with here. It's a planned industrial area serving heavy trucking and airport gruntwork. It was planned, because that shit has to be somewhere.

You're not getting a bike path here because it doesn't connect to anything. The existing haul road creates a gap with the Eastie Greenway, and the north terminus of this parcel has no outlet to anywhere because of the highway blocking it. You also already have a Blue Line path connecting the Greenway at Wood Island to Orient Heights. Extending that north is how you're going to get to Suffolk Downs and Revere, specifically because it can't be done on the East Boston Branch ROW. It's a moot consideration.

4) I think we need better roadway and network redundancy. This fits the bill and because it is a toll road it won't induce as much traffic as a free Road would.

Stop right there. Here we have the add-a-lane as "resiliency" fallacy in full glory. Adding lanes, whether attached to the road, tolled, or tolled behind a row of buildings, doesn't do shit for resiliency. It's induced demand, ensuring ever-heavier load. If we want better roadway resiliency, then we have to upgrade the lane capacity we do have to full standards. Right AND left shoulders provide resiliency...probably more than any other thing. Fixing substandard ramps provides resiliency. Fixing substandard geometry provides resiliency. Eliminating wasteful, conflict-prone weaving provides resiliency. We have cases in Boston like the I-93 HOV's where adding capacity has worked directly AGAINST resiliency by trimming back all other means of resiliency.

If you want more of that on 1A, either take it from 4-lane quasi-turnpike to whole-hog 4-lane expressway with proper exits/frontages, or gradually start ratcheting up the turnpike upgrades with resiliency-serving features like better shoulders and reduced weaving. "Managed" lane doesn't do any of that; it's a distraction from making the roadway more resilient.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

This is the classic example of people popping off without a clue as to what is the nature of that to which they are reacting

Specifically -- I looked at the RFP -- we are talking about old unused track just a bit over a mile not really connected to anything now

On the other hand the ROW runs very near to what will be eventually another South Boston Seaport development in scale -- and one with a difficult access at present

Note further that the agreement in question doesn't allow the developer to build buildings on the ROW just to pave it and use if for vehicles -- potentially of benefit to expanded Silver Line Service

You didn't look close enough yourself before accusing others of doing the same.

The track was railbanked by the MBTA long ago, but us still connected. Pan Am's active freight rights end at Global Terminal's property; they abandoned down to Chelsea St. The only reason the track stub was kept was in the rainy-day case that Global wanted to run a 100+ car string of tankers through its loading port...in which case the stub down to Chelsea St. was useful to retain. But it didn't need to be retained as active by Pan Am because Global would be the one shunting cars with its own switcher in that scenario, not them. In the real world the stub isn't necessary because Global's freight yard and the trackage further north are ample space for shunting. The ROW in question has always been about 90% expendable, whereas the ROW to the north nearly got reactivated in 2012 for an ethanol mixing operation and has some long-term prospects attached.


The ROW does not run near future-Southie-in-the-Eastie. Not even close. It ends well north of all the gentrification potential around Maverick, and is on the other side of the peninsula from Suffolk Downs. It could not be any less related to transportation to the growth areas. The Tomasello Way entrance to Suffolk from 1A is blocked from this would-be roadway by a 1500 ft. row of Massport air freight vendors who aren't going anywhere, so it will do nothing to enhance access there. Suffolk Downs is where a grade-separated interchange on 1A to Tomasello and a rebuild of the 145 interchange will help...not anything on this property.

And as for the buses...the ONLY reason 1A has any routes on it is because we never built Blue Line to Lynn. 7 of the 4xx-series routes run express from Lynn Terminal or Wonderland to downtown @ Haymarket or Downtown Crossing because of the lack of rapid transit connection at Lynn Terminal. ALL 7 buses would disappear and truncate at Lynn for the sake of equipment rotations and better local headways if the extension were built. And nothing would need to use any busway fragment that pokes 1 inch north of where SL3 currently leaves to cross the bridge. 1A's transit uses or congestion therein are wholly artificial contraption malingering for 50 years. It won't be addressed by tarting up that corridor for another 25 years of this status-quo hack routing that dodges the real problem. When the whole of the North Shore needs to reach Suffolk Downs, we can't dodge too much longer that it has to be by Blue Line.

 

[Arlington]

Eastie's gentrification is SOUTH and EAST of here

Uh, I guess when there's only water on the West, all gentrification must be east of here, so I'll only dispute the characterization of "SOUTH"

Suffolk downs is NORTH and its "single curb cut" at the end of its 1A access "finger" is nonetheless a portal for:

- 7,000 to 10,000 apartment units
- 800 hotel
- 5m to 6m sq ft of office
- half million sq ft of retail

Creates a bidirectional "local" (intra-peninsular Eastie/Revere) multi modal demand, from gentrified Eastie & Chelsea NORTH each morning to work at Suffolk Downs, and from Suffolk Downs. A big chunk will go on the East side by Blue & shore biking, but some will go by car/uber/bike, and some will have reason to be on the east shore.

Even if the Blue goes to Lynn, there's still going to be bus and urban ring demand on this west side of the peninsula.

I'd also say that if we do airport access the way it's going, the rental car lots are going to squeezed out. The cheap rental car market supported by lots is going to get sqeezed "up" to higher on-site/structured prices and "down" to encouraging bus.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Uh, I guess when there's only water on the West, all gentrification must be east of here, so I'll only dispute the characterization of "SOUTH"

Suffolk downs is NORTH and its "single curb cut" at the end of its 1A access "finger" is nonetheless a portal for:

- 7,000 to 10,000 apartment units
- 800 hotel
- 5m to 6m sq ft of office
- half million sq ft of retail

Creates a bidirectional "local" (intra-peninsular Eastie/Revere) multi modal demand, from gentrified Eastie & Chelsea NORTH each morning to work at Suffolk Downs, and from Suffolk Downs. A big chunk will go on the East side by Blue & shore biking, but some will go by car/uber/bike, and some will have reason to be on the east shore.

Even if the Blue goes to Lynn, there's still going to be bus and urban ring demand on this west side of the peninsula.

I'd also say that if we do airport access the way it's going, the rental car lots are going to squeezed out. The cheap rental car market supported by lots is going to get sqeezed "up" to higher on-site/structured prices and "down" to encouraging bus.

It's not physically near the highway, though. If you want less constipated traffic movements on 1A, you're making better interchanges/intersections to the side streets that reach the development not cramming more vehicles on the highway that isn't near it. What is so hard to understand about that???

Second...I outlined where all the buses go in the reply to whigh. ALL of the 1A buses are Lynn Terminal hack jobs that express to downtown from lack of rapid transit transfer. ALL of them go away with Blue-Lynn. Now, there might be a backfill of a new Maverick route and/or other reconfigurations to give the west sides of those cross streets representation and frequency replacements for the deleted 4xx buses...but you can't possibly say 1 shortie local route vs. 7 is busway-worthy or that said busway isn't immediately going to turn into a free-for-all.

Biking...what did I just say in the last post? The only connectable bikeway is the Greenway extension along the Blue Line. This one is completely disconnected at both origin and endpoint, and always will be.

The rental car lots are not getting squeezed out. That is magical thinking. If the metro area keeps growing so explosively, there's always going to be a need for it at no less than current levels even if new growth gets scraped over to other modes. Massport isn't selling its air freight parcels and isn't letting the rental car lots it maneuvered into those spot become condos. C'mon, they are enormously tight about their integrated planning a stone's throw from Logan. Those aren't jump-ball parcels for anyone waving a cheque.

 

[Arlington]

It's not physically near the highway, though. If you want less constipated traffic movements on 1A, you're making better interchanges/intersections to the side streets that reach the development not cramming more vehicles on the highway that isn't near it. What is so hard to understand about that??.

For starters, It is hard to understand what "side streets" you are referring to when Suffolk Downs' access is only from the arterial 1A & Revere Beach Parkway, & State Rd, and O&D demand to/from the whole rest of the metro area* is almost by definition, on the 1A side.



*except Beachmont and Winthrop

 

[whighlander]

For starters, It is hard to understand what "side streets" you are referring to when Suffolk Downs' access is only from the arterial 1A & Revere Beach Parkway, & State Rd, and O&D demand to/from the whole rest of the metro area* is almost by definition, on the 1A side.



*except Beachmont and Winthrop

First of all -- we don't even know if anyone will respond to the RFP

2nd -- some of this might have been contingency for an Amazonia which is not happening

3rd -- that far up Chelsea Creek is not that useful as there is no room to turn around large ships

4th -- as Amazonia is not happening but a new life for the Suffolk Downs and Wonderland lands is beginning -- we have no real idea how it will all play-out However, One thing we can be fairly sure is that as property values go up -- marginal industrial / warehouse uses not directly connected to Logan will be replaced by higher value uses

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious which is to turn this into a bus only road. You've got half a dozen north shore bus lines running down 1A/60, not to mention the others which end at Wonderland or even Maverick. Since this connects to the SL3 BRT lane already why not just funnel more through the Ted instead of Sumner/Callahan? Obviously that would shift things from Haymarket to South Station but I guess the point is that you'd still see usage. It wouldn't even have to be part of the Silver Line, you could paint bus lanes in South Boston along Northern or Summer and get buses to South Station even faster.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious which is to turn this into a bus only road. You've got half a dozen north shore bus lines running down 1A/60, not to mention the others which end at Wonderland or even Maverick. Since this connects to the SL3 BRT lane already why not just funnel more through the Ted instead of Sumner/Callahan? Obviously that would shift things from Haymarket to South Station but I guess the point is that you'd still see usage. It wouldn't even have to be part of the Silver Line, you could paint bus lanes in South Boston along Northern or Summer and get buses to South Station even faster.

All of the buses on 1A are Lynn routes thru-routed to Downtown to weakly compensate for the lack of rapid transit transfer. That practice started in 1969-70 after the T purchased formerly independent Eastern Mass Street Railway in '68. That downtown routing ends up depriving Lynn Terminal of headways for all North Shore routes because of the equipment siphon dragging all those routes out on incredibly long schedules to downtown. The entirety of that region sees generally crap frequencies because of this arrangement, and there isn't a way to address that with the current route arrangement that doesn't end up keeping the problem static or outright accelerating the equipment drain to even worse North Shore headways.

So why would we want to invest in cementing bad transit for another generation by building this...tollway thing...when all it does is ensure crap North Shore bus frequencies now, crap North Shore bus frequencies forever? Something's got to give: (1) a full build of Blue-Lynn so Lynn Terminal can be the one and only terminus and buses can be more rapidly turned around for immediate frequency gains; (2) a half-step of mass bus consolidation at Wonderland + a Red-Blue build so long-distance directs to DTX are no longer necessary + increase in overall Blue frequencies so the bus cycling pain is minimized and Blue-Wonderland can move the swells of transferees without turning into Forest Hills-North. Either way the buses on 1A get utterly zeroed out...poof, all gone. Maybe they add one new short-range Maverick-originating route as backfill to provide representative coverage of side of the neighborhood opposite Bennington and south of Winthrop St. after all the Lynn routes vacate...but that's it.

^That^ constitutes the varying degrees of an actual transit solution. The tollway isn't going to do shit for any local routes except make the powers that be gung-ho for digging in to perpetuate an actual identified festering-sore transit problem.

 

[Arlington]

[in answer to a Vans question] as long as the tolls keep the freight traffic flowing freeely, the buses should be happy to use it and mix in usage with the freight.

I'm also picturing that the airport will at some point put a toll on its bypass Road (which is a short segment to the south of this that is already handling a mix of traffic)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

^ as long as the tolls keep the freight traffic flowing freeely, the buses should be happy to use it and mix in usage with the freight.

I'm also picturing that the airport will at some point put a toll on its bypass Road (which is a short segment to the south of this that is already handling a mix of traffic)

Did you read anything in this thread? Like...anything???

• Trucks flow freely if the roadway encourages free movements. That's a design and resiliency problem, NOT a capacity problem. If the 1A turnpike section is gunking up (is it???), then why are we building a separate roadway instead of fixing 1A with...I don't know...literally dozens of potential geometry/weaving/intersection/interchange improvements on the table. Low-cost and up. It is a fallacious argument that HOV's add resiliency.

• Trucks that already have access to a free-flowing state highway do not need a haul road of their own. Haul roads are for spanning the distance to a state highway when the distance in-between is a bunch of city streets where the traffic would negatively impact quality-of-life. There's no distance to the highway here, and no quality-of-life considerations with the 1A abutters. QoL has already been taken care of with the grassy separation from any nearby residences...ironically the very thing that's going to make "boulevardization" a fantasy nonstarter.

• The facilities on 1A that are most reliant on Massport facilities...are themselves Massport facilities. If the agency is leasing out the air freight facilities, is it really going to slap a toll on every truck that comes out of there down the street? I doubt it, because then it won't be able to rent out the air freight center. Oops! And I don't think we're going to much like the price increase in wholesale gasoline if tankers coming out of Global are getting dinged for tolls. Massport pockets, we all get punished at the pump, and we complain to our pols who tell Massport to knock it off. Now enter a road that's a pure capacity grab and isn't paying for itself because we're only tolling specialty users locked-in while every schlub from the North Shore driving 1A because their bus frequencies are ass can sit in traffic free-as-in-beer. Do you see what a nothing proposition the revenue angle is???

• As explained ad nauseam--and apparently ignored just as ad nauseam--the buses SHOULD NOT FUCKING BE THERE. Any of them. Those 400-series routings are all contrived hacks. Each and every route that currently uses 1A is a Lynn Terminal route running a distended express to Haymarket or DTX because none of them can get rapid transit at all from Lynn, and none of them can reach the Red Line from Wonderland. Wholly artificial, and the equipment drain destroys North Shore frequencies. It's bad transit practice...B-A-D bad. It is why the North Shore has a much higher car usage share than the South Shore. We need to get these routes to terminate close to terminal so they can cycle back out as higher frequencies and take traffic OFF roads like 1A.

Do you understand that building an induced-demand tollway for additional capacity, plotting to put these bus routes that should not even exist this far south on it, and not addressing 1A's ability to resiliently carry traffic (either by doing nothing because tollway = shiny thing or trying to "boulevard" oiltanks-ville) is making the corridor's transportation problem worse, not better, for the long-term?


I've said all I can say here. If you want to keep repeating personal belief willfully unsupported by any evidence, knock yourself out. We're way through the looking glass on uses that aren't really uses, developments that aren't going to be developed that way, state agencies acting way against their self-interest, and up-is-down on how transportation networks supposedly function.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

At the very least the idea of charging trucks to use a road when there is a free road literally feet away seems like an idea that should have never gotten out of someones mouth. It just sounds like a bad way to raise some extra money.

 

[whighlander]

At the very least the idea of charging trucks to use a road when there is a free road literally feet away seems like an idea that should have never gotten out of someones mouth. It just sounds like a bad way to raise some extra money.

Let's wait a few days [ Bids are due at
the offices of the MBTA and MassDOT by 10:30 A.M. on Tuesday, July 30, 2019, ] and see if there are any actual bids on the easement

 

[datadyne007]

Let's wait a few days [ Bids are due at
the offices of the MBTA and MassDOT by 10:30 A.M. on Tuesday, July 30, 2019, ] and see if there are any actual bids on the easement

The RFP is literally written for one bidder. This is a handoff of public land without any public process or consideration (poorly) disguised as a public RFP. They wrote the RFP to the terms that Cargo Ventures wanted. It's a sham.