Volpe Transportation Center Development | Kendall Sq | Cambridge

[JeffDowntown]

I mean, it's a practicality thing. Should everyone who is currently employed at Volpe and commutes move to the city or quit?

It is a convenience and entitlement thing. Government employees who have enjoyed many years of free, low density, surface, parking on some of the most valuable real estate in metro Boston.

Get out the violins that they might be a bit inconvenienced.

 

[bigpicture7]

MIT is going through the same thing right next door in Kendall w/ the Kendall Gateway project. They are down a net hundreds of parking spaces since closing the east campus lots (much will be recovered when the new underground lot opens, but I wouldn't count on the number of spaces ever getting back to its peak...parking continues to be a convenient source of land for much needed projects, such as the new dorm on Vassar that's going up).

Many, many of the people that had these parking stickers were suburbanite commuters. But that didn't stop MIT - they eased the pain by giving every employee a free T pass and deep discounts on commuter rail.

It's not easy for people stuck in routines, but they have to understand that Cambridge changed around them. It's not what it was even just 20 years ago. Part of why the area is vibrant in terms of employment (and why there's such job security for the non-tenured folks) is how successful the area has been. These workers are part of an ecosystem -- this isn't a suburban office park island.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

MIT is going through the same thing right next door in Kendall w/ the Kendall Gateway project. They are down a net hundreds of parking spaces since closing the east campus lots (much will be recovered when the new underground lot opens, but I wouldn't count on the number of spaces ever getting back to its peak...parking continues to be a convenient source of land for much needed projects, such as the new dorm on Vassar that's going up).

Many, many of the people that had these parking stickers were suburbanite commuters. But that didn't stop MIT - they eased the pain by giving every employee a free T pass and deep discounts on commuter rail.

It's not easy for people stuck in routines, but they have to understand that Cambridge changed around them. It's not what it was even just 20 years ago. Part of why the area is vibrant in terms of employment (and why there's such job security for the non-tenured folks) is how successful the area has been. These workers are part of an ecosystem -- this isn't a suburban office park island.

They're losing a couple hundred and adding back 1,200. More than much will be recovered.

 

[bigpicture7]

They're losing a couple hundred and adding back 1,200. More than much will be recovered.

Does that account for the West Garage demo to make way for the new dorm? I do not believe it does. And that is a project that is going on simultaneously - the garage was just closed this month for the demo.

Meanwhile my point is that they are net negative for years while all of this construction is going on, and that parking continues to be a source of land for new projects. It would not surprise me in the least if the Albany garage is targeted next. MIT invested heavily in an employee transit program because they know they'll be net negative on parking on a rolling basis. Yes I understand that some view it as a shame that they're recovering parking...

EDIT: interesting article specifically about what I am talking about at MIT:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/04/16/transport-u-colleges-embrace-policies-to-reduce-driving/

Places like Stanford and MIT — elite colleges in expensive housing markets — have been leading the way on TDM [Transportation Demand Management], motivated in large part by financial necessity, says Tumlin. High land costs and the lack of undeveloped land nearby make reserving large parts of campus for car storage cost-prohibitive.

Larry Brutti, operations manager at MIT’s Parking and Operations Office, said adding a single parking space on MIT’s campus costs the university about $100,000. The institution is focused, instead, on promoting biking and transit for its faculty and staff.

In addition to the high cost, at a land-constrained campus, preserving space for parking means less space to advance learning, like additional research and instruction facilities.

Right now, as schools struggle with declining public funding, more colleges and universities than ever are embracing the cost-saving approach of TDM. The times simply demand innovation, says Tumlin

 

[SeamusMcFly]

The west garage is listed as having 147 spots.

Looks like building 2 when it gets built will also have a few levels of parking, and roughly 189 spots (based on an old presentation I have).

So, yes still looks like a big net gain in parking for the area.

Don't agree with it, but it is what's happening.

 

[fattony]

The west garage is listed as having 147 spots.

Looks like building 2 when it gets built will also have a few levels of parking, and roughly 189 spots (based on an old presentation I have).

So, yes still looks like a big net gain in parking for the area.

Don't agree with it, but it is what's happening.

Good luck to anyone who chooses to commute to Kendall by car. There are not many ways in and out of Cambridge and they are all jammed up daily as it is. I predict any net increase in parking for office workers in Kendall will end up underutilized.

Parking for residents I think will be snapped up quickly. Even people who don't commute in their car often own one for the weekends. People will take spots if they are available.

 

[Gameguy326]

It is a convenience and entitlement thing. Government employees who have enjoyed many years of free, low density, surface, parking on some of the most valuable real estate in metro Boston.

Get out the violins that they might be a bit inconvenienced.

Okay...why would Volpe want to purposefully inconvenience their own employees? Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

 

[bigpicture7]

The west garage is listed as having 147 spots.

Looks like building 2 when it gets built will also have a few levels of parking, and roughly 189 spots (based on an old presentation I have).

So, yes still looks like a big net gain in parking for the area.

Don't agree with it, but it is what's happening.

I am truly not trying to be an ass, but I just don't understand where you're getting your info from. West Garage is much bigger than that. It has at least 370 spots specifically for tagged employee vehicles (per this article), and I believe other spots that public can buy a daily parking ticket for. I know and work with several individuals that just got kicked out of that garage last month. It is a substantial 4-story structure spanning a full block.

Also, I was trying not to be nit-picky above, but the 1200 spots you are referring to are not all employee spots. As I was aware, and as is repeated in the article above, the new spaces opening in east campus in the year 2020 are 500 spots designated for employees. This is a mixed use development.

The reason I am holding a firm line on this is because I happen to know that MIT has been very aggressive in begging staff members to reduce car usage. Again, from that article:

Access MIT makes it easier for MIT community members to seek lower-carbon transportation options, such as commuting by bike or via public transportation instead of by car, supporting MIT’s goal of reducing parking demand on campus 10 percent by 2018. The program provides eligible employees with benefits such as free MBTA subway and local bus passes, commuter rail subsidies, and subsidies for parking at MBTA stations. To date, Access MIT has succeeded in reducing parking demand on campus by almost 5 percent.

I get (and am part of!!) the reduced-car sentiment that many share on aB, but all I am trying to say is that of all the companies/organizations to be angry at about this, MIT should NOT be near the top of your list. They staunchly committed to a 10% reduction staff commuting by car over only a 3 year span (2015 - 2018).

 

[JeffDowntown]

Okay...why would Volpe want to purposefully inconvenience their own employees? Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

Volpe doesn't want to do it, of course. It remains, though, a very entitled attitude, given the location. But the GSA might make them to complete the MIT deal.

 

[stellarfun]

Volpe doesn't want to do it, of course. It remains, though, a very entitled attitude, given the location. But the GSA might make them to complete the MIT deal.

Property owners typically are entitled to use and enjoy the accouterments that come with the property, such as a garage or driveway. Unless of course, the property is in the socialist republic of Cambridge.

The deal specifically provides that MIT cannot start on its part of the site until new Volpe (with capacity for 1300 employees) is opened. MIT agreed to that. If MIT and the government were to agree to some other arrangement for Volpe employee parking in the interim, the cost of that would be borne by MIT. The construction costs of new Volpe are to be deducted from the $750 million purchase price. Current Volpe apparently has 570 spaces.

 

[tangent]

Until we get to a decent urban ring involving train or bus service (Grand Junction with sufficient parking at Sullivan Square perhaps) and more frequent indigo service, then the only reasonable park and ride to Kendall/MIT from the North is Alewife and that really only covers the Arlington/Belmont/Lexington areas and points North West. And even Alewife fills up. If the State wants Kendall to continue to grow then it had better invest in some transportation options, otherwise cars are going to remain a bigger part of the transportation mix for Kendall and parking them is going to take up valuable real estate or cost more to put them underground.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

I am truly not trying to be an ass, but I just don't understand where you're getting your info from. West Garage is much bigger than that. It has at least 370 spots specifically for tagged employee vehicles (per this article), and I believe other spots that public can buy a daily parking ticket for. I know and work with several individuals that just got kicked out of that garage last month. It is a substantial 4-story structure spanning a full block.

Also, I was trying not to be nit-picky above, but the 1200 spots you are referring to are not all employee spots. As I was aware, and as is repeated in the article above, the new spaces opening in east campus in the year 2020 are 500 spots designated for employees. This is a mixed use development.

The reason I am holding a firm line on this is because I happen to know that MIT has been very aggressive in begging staff members to reduce car usage. Again, from that article:


I get (and am part of!!) the reduced-car sentiment that many share on aB, but all I am trying to say is that of all the companies/organizations to be angry at about this, MIT should NOT be near the top of your list. They staunchly committed to a 10% reduction staff commuting by car over only a 3 year span (2015 - 2018).

No, you're not being an ass. I took a number from the interwebs and didn't qualify it. The MIT site states it has 370 spaces like you say, and maybe that 147 is the available spaces for the public. It's obviously a good sized garage. Thanks for helping me correct myself.

Aware that they are not all MIT employee spots. I'm pretty much against any being MIT employee specific spots. They are no different than any other employee in the area. No one should be entitle to a spot here, and when they don't use them, no one else can.

I ain't angry at them or anyone. There is already a lot of parking in the area with massive above grade parking like tech sq. draper, OKS, and the mentioned MIT garages. There are also large parking garages at 1 Broadway, massive below grade parking below watermark, below 301 Binney, and many more I'm not aware of. New buildings like 100, 50/60, 225 Binney etc. all have big ole parking lots below grade.

I believe you're right, and these will go underutilized like the Vertex parking garages. Hind sight will be 20/20, but planners should know the outcome instead of sinking millions of dollars into garages, that could be better spent elsewhere.

Parking for residents I get more, but still at something like 0.5 spaces per unit.

Kendall, despite all of the above, has shown that high density does not have to mean ridiculous gridlock at all hours. I don't want to see that swing the wrong way as we supposedly get smarter about infrastructure.

If the red line is supposedly adding approx. 50% capacity in the coming years due to new cars and signal upgrades, let's take advantage of that and not keep providing parking to entitled people.

 

[bigpicture7]

^ good dialog is always nice. it's what makes engaging in forums like this fulfilling. I've learned a lot from you about the lab building development in greater kendall - thank you.

...instead of sinking millions of dollars into garages, that could be better spent elsewhere.

^totally agree; when you look at if from a "how could we have spent these resources?" standpoint, it is sad. I'm sure it costs a ton for a multistory underground garage. (though building a new above-ground garage these days is really sad b/c it also takes away the land resource).

Just one last note about MIT/entitlement: MIT employees don't get their spots for free. They pay for them annually (I don't know of the latest rates at the top of my head). There are nowhere near enough spots for all Kendall area employees, so the ones who get them pay. And MIT has been strategically increasing transit benefits while increasing the cost to employees for parking spots, so as to amplify the cost benefit to employees for switching to transit. They are trying to wean them off of parking. I am only aware of the -10% by 2018 target...not sure what the projections are beyond that.

But you're right: once the multistory underground garage is installed, it's there...underutilized or not. And that takes mega resources.

 

[tangent]

Kendall, despite all of the above, has shown that high density does not have to mean ridiculous gridlock at all hours. I don't want to see that swing the wrong way as we supposedly get smarter about infrastructure.

If the red line is supposedly adding approx. 50% capacity in the coming years due to new cars and signal upgrades, let's take advantage of that and not keep providing parking to entitled people.

Kendall is basically just a few dense city blocks surrounded by much lower density city neighborhoods... adding capacity to the Red line is not going to be enough to sustain growth in and around Kendall much beyond what it is now. Need to be able to move people perpendicular to the Red line also... eventually need to connect Kendall to West Station via either bus and/or light rail on Grand Junction.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

It's a pretty dense half mile radius from the kendall station.

I still think an infill station, particularly with faster accelerating/decelerating trains, and improved signals with a midpoint stop between Kendall & Central would be killer (in a good way) for the area.

3rd street becomes a pretty important link when lechmere moves. It's basically a 1 mile walk between both. So that lateral movement is covered. Not to mention the MIT, ARE, Etc. buses don't go away.

I don't get the much lower density city neighborhoods. Bent street north to lechmere is dense urban neighborhoods, so is the port, and cambridgeport.

East Cambridge = 22.8 persons/acre.
Area 3 = 42.9 persons/acre.
Area 4 = 35.6 persons/acre
Cambridgeport = 36.2 persons/acre. (23,000+/sq. mi.)

I agree, additional mass transit is needed, but your take on the area seems murky.

Bikes do a great job of moving local residents to the area. I'd say the area grows on the red lines back, and everything else is ancillary.

 

[fattony]

I agree Kendall needs more service than just the Red Line upgrade, but it doesn't have to be (and isn't going to be) on the Grand Junction. The CT2 and 64 serve Kendall more or less perpendicular to the Red. And EZ-Ride shuttles people to/from North Station. These services need beefing up long before any discussion of new rail service (which isn't going to happen, as has been hacked to death in the Transit threads).

Thanks for the numbers Seamus - describing the neighborhoods surrounding Kendall as "low density" is baffling. The buildings are short, but roads are small and buildings are packed in tight. Skyscrapers aren't the only way to make density...

 

[odurandina]

On this thread and Amazon rfp, you guys (and gals) are kicking f__king ass with the brilliant commentary! AB Rocks! Thanks!

 

[tangent]

I agree Kendall needs more service than just the Red Line upgrade, but it doesn't have to be (and isn't going to be) on the Grand Junction. The CT2 and 64 serve Kendall more or less perpendicular to the Red. And EZ-Ride shuttles people to/from North Station. These services need beefing up long before any discussion of new rail service (which isn't going to happen, as has been hacked to death in the Transit threads).

Thanks for the numbers Seamus - describing the neighborhoods surrounding Kendall as "low density" is baffling. The buildings are short, but roads are small and buildings are packed in tight. Skyscrapers aren't the only way to make density...

Should have said "lower" relative density. Meaning triple deckers and not mixed use higher than three story density like you have (or have planned) in and around Kendall Square.

Just thinking 15 years out you are looking at Kendall that will be mostly built out and then you either hold there and focus elsewhere or you build on that and extend that redevelopment into East Cambridge neighborhoods... and what does that mean for efficient cross town transportation if you say double or triple the number of people living there.

Just going to need to think more about getting people between the orange, green and red line stations. At this point probably just more buses and some dedicated bus lanes perhaps.

And the car parking issue... would be better to see those cars parking closer to the highways, but yes people from outside the city still need to come to the city efficiently.

 

[Gameguy326]

First information and renders of the new DoT building. A lot shorter than expected - 212 feet - which wouldn't be bad if it weren't so bland...

The landscaping sounds nice though; it will including art from Maya Lin.

http://news.mit.edu/2019/john-volpe-transportations-systems-design-0205

 

[Suffolk 83]

Cambridge is real let down for us architecture enthusiasts