DOT Parcels | 25-28 Kneeland Street | Chinatown

Equilibria said:
MassDOT does not use any money from the "General Fund". See for yourself:

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/financials/FY_2015.pdf

"Commonwealth Transfers" refers to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund. Most generally, highways in MA are funded by five things: the gas tax, registration and license fees, the sales tax on cars, tolls, and aid from the Federal Government (mostly gas tax money). I assume that by "General Fund" you meant "taxpayer money" and not the literal "General Fund" that MassDOT doesn't have access to, but it's not true either way. MassDOT's revenue sources are all highway-related and are routed to them by law.

The MBTA, by contrast, receives a dedicated portion of the MA sales tax, in addition to fares, local assessments, parking revenue, etc.

I'm leaving some stuff out, but of highways and transit, only transit could be said to be "subsidized" in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Equilibria -- its interesting that you came across the same pdf on Port Project Funding as I did

The more generic website I quoted from above
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/PlanningProcess/FundingConsiderations.aspx
Funding Considerations
Introduction
Funding for transportation improvements can come from a range of different sources, including federal, state, and local. In Massachusetts, the majority of large transportation construction projects are funded with a combination of federal transportation and required non-federal match, generally provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The following is a summary of the principal funding sources that support the construction of transportation projects in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

The key distinction is between operating and capital improvements:
  • For Construction and such by both the T and the Highways [but mostly not Massport] -- Mass DOT gets a lot of Federal Funds from US DOT much of which is not paid for by taxes but comes from borrowing by the Treasury
  • For operations its more complicated as the category includes interest payments on construction bonds as well as actual operational expenses.
    • there is limited Federal Funds for any highway operations -- most of the highway operations come from the gas tax, registry fees, car [sales and annual excise tax] and tolls and truck fees
    • Fed's fund quite a bit of airport & port Security [TSA, Customs, Immigration]
    • most T operations come from Massachusetts sales tax and Federal Grants -- less than a 1/3 comes from fares
      Federal Transit Administration
      The federal government, through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), provides financial assistance to develop new transit systems and improve, maintain, and operate existing systems. FTA oversees thousands of grants to hundreds of state and local transit providers through the FTA regional offices. The grantees are responsible for managing their programs in accordance with federal requirements and FTA is responsible for ensuring that these grantees follow the mandates along with statutory and administrative requirements. The various federally-funded transit categories are:
      .....
      Click to expand...
 
Everyone just hold on to your drawers until something official comes out. SST is in a flight path too. Nobody knows anything yet.
 
stick n move said:
Everyone just hold on to your drawers until something official comes out. SST is in a flight path too. Nobody knows anything yet.
Click to expand...

Stick if you look at Massport's Airspace Map [albeit unofficial] it shows SST being outside of direct line of the runway and with a 700 ft contour going right by the site
 
whighlander said:
Stick if you look at Massport's Airspace Map [albeit unofficial] it shows SST being outside of direct line of the runway and with a 700 ft contour going right by the site
Click to expand...

Its still in a flight path just not exactly in the middle like these are. We dont know what were getting yet so just wait until something comes out.
 
Could they fit a Rev's Stadium on Parcel 26? Good access to public transportation with South Station and they could even build a parking garage on parcel 25.
 
Blackdog said:
Could they fit a Rev's Stadium on Parcel 26? Good access to public transportation with South Station and they could even build a parking garage on parcel 25.
Click to expand...

I don't think 26 will work, but you might be able to do it on Parcel 27.

Parcel 26 has to include the replacement for the Veolia steam power station. And it must include a replacement for Reggie Wong Park. The RFP drafts I saw were pretty specific about looking for mixed residential, commercial, office development, not a stadium.

Parcel 27 is a blank slate though. But the access is really hard to configure.
 
CSTH said:
So it seems to me that this structure means you'd have to be crazy to not include 27a (the ramp parcel) in a bid - because 5 mill for 2 acres is a pretty good deal. And it's not even close to useless - at a minimum it can host 'back of the house' functions ( a garage, inevitably), and if you were able to make the bus road the 'ground level ' on the north side you could do something pretty meaningful.
Click to expand...

stick n move said:
axon-sketchpark.jpg
Click to expand...

the photo above is from an early, Menino era master plan for development of the Gateway Tower a decade ago. The park as shown would seem a good place to do parking garage + some combination of athletic field/s/park above + foot bridges....

Parcels 25 and 26a/b were recently determined by the BRA for a max height of 300' on each parcel as part of the master plan. ...i recall that it would work out to be 1 moderately dense resident tower for each parcel, with the rest being done as midrises. The max sq ft for the master plan seemed to be a considerably low number for these parcels.


faa by site builder, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
i think this would be a good place for parking + athletic field/s above + foot bridges/?

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/146253000@N02/30657453472/in/dateposted-public/" title="faa"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5449/30657453472_f8216fc4d7_z.jpg" width="640" height="349" alt="faa"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146253000@N02/30657453472/in/dateposted-public/
Click to expand...

I don't know about the height shown in that image. The max height is going to be 300 ft. per the RFP, tapering to 125 ft along Kneeland Street.
 
odurandina said:
it's in the flickr photo i attempted to post

but i'm at a loss as to how to embed the god darned thing as i'm using flickr for the very first time because photobucket has taken a complete shit in recent days.
Click to expand...

Yes, lots of photos in the forum are failing in recent days.
 
FWIW -- I think Parcel 27 is probably too small for a soccer stadium, unless you built up high enough to cantilever out over the highway/ramps. Could perhaps get creative in the design, with a stadium access plaza along the South Station connector.
 
stick n move said:
Everyone just hold on to your drawers until something official comes out. SST is in a flight path too. Nobody knows anything yet.
Click to expand...

BPDA worked with FAA to get specific determinations for several sites, including HG, SST, 1 Bromfield, 111 Fed and DOT kneeland parcels.

SST is 692' above MSL, for 778' above the street. SST proposal is 6 inches below the ceiling.
111 Fed is 725' or 735'.
1 Bromfield is 710'. proposed tower is 1' below the ceiling.
Harbor Garage is 600'
DOT parcels are 300'
 
How about they just move the runway a few degrees. No biggie.
 
Someone asked if they could do that before, it was pretty hilarious. Runway 9/27 is the sole reason for downtowns height issues its not so much logans proximity to the city. If only they had built 15L/33R at full legth instead...

Imagine an alternate reality with no 9/27, allowing height, also allowing a sydney harbor/manhattan bridge instead of the tunnell over the harbor with a bike/ped path allowing East Boston residents to cross the harbor w/o a train or car (also a great welcoming piece to the harbor entrance by boat), the blue line servicing the seaport and using the lower bridge deck to cross the harbor to the airport continuing into East Boston, and the 1920's not essentially bypassing us giving us a couple art deco spires.....sorry way off track


Anyways.
 
Last edited:
1. Height

"Given the site’s proximity to Downtown and South Station, there is an opportunity for significant height and density on the Property. Previous studies, as well as recent conversations with the community, have reinforced a stepped approach to height; future buildings located along Kneeland Street should step down in height to a scale that comfortably relates to the existing Leather District buildings. However, significantly taller buildings may be developed at the southern portion of the site."
 
ShawnA said:
Something big is definitely coming, Safe to say this is the best chance for the new tallest in the city. Due date for bids is 2:00pm March 3,2017. https://www.mbtarealty.com/bid-docs/
Click to expand...

height limit is 300'

also stated in BPDA's master plan for these parcels.

We also need to be clear about this; We're going to be about 3 years into the process of redevelopment, when we awake to the following front page article in the Globe that reads as follows;

Massport objects to height of Developer's plans for Kneeland St/Mass Dot Parcels....

MassPort says the 300-foot tower will disrupt flight paths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top