BCEC expansion | Seaport

BostonUrbEx said:
Increasing taxes on tourists means they'll be less likely to come here or less likely to spend as much money here.
Click to expand...
Bull. It won't impact anything. People won't even really notice if hotel rates go even higher. There is such a ridiculously high demand for hotels in Boston. Those who might be priced out by the increase will be easily/instantly replaced by those with the $. Boston is a destination for everyone around the world. The fact that we have no sales tax on essentials (clothes and groceries) puts blinders on tourists who are excited to shop here while we gouge them on expensive rates and high hotel and meal/restaurant taxes.

In regards to the "is the BCEC good for us Bostonians?" debate, my opinion is overwhelmingly yes. The revenues it brings in for our city and local economy are excellent. They're not expanding just for the hell of it. They're expanding because organizations are asking for it because they want to host even larger conventions in Boston. I honestly can't even imagine what a larger convention there would be like. PAX East is freaking huge and brings in 90,000 people. Demand is apparently there for even more.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
.......In regards to the "is the BCEC good for us Bostonians?" debate, my opinion is overwhelmingly yes. The revenues it brings in for our city and local economy are excellent. They're not expanding just for the hell of it. They're expanding because organizations are asking for it because they want to host even larger conventions in Boston. I honestly can't even imagine what a larger convention there would be like. PAX East is freaking huge and brings in 90,000 people. Demand is apparently there for even more.
Click to expand...

I agree with some of your points there, but without real transportation infrastructure upgrades and expansion, this will all be for naught. No one will want to come to Boston if the big conventions send people home moaning about how they were stuck in hours of gridlock or that the trains don't run. There is only so much strain this growth can put on that new district before the arteries get blocked up. The BCEC expansion shouldn't happen in a vacuum. If it does, it will be disastrous.
 
Last edited:
Can we ban Rifleman? He never does anything but derail threads with bogus political commentary. It really detracts from the awesomeness that is this site otherwise.
 
just because you might not agree with something does not make it bogus.
tis a slipperly slope to suggest that someone be banned for such a thing--what about folks that might think your opinions are bogus?
and surely you cannot be serious that ALL of Rifleman's posts are bereft any forum-related content . . .
and now, back to BCEC Expansion.
 
shmessy said:
I agree with some of your points there, but without real transportation infrastructure upgrades and expansion, this will all be for naught. No one will want to come to Boston if the big conventions send people home moaning about how they were stuck in hours of gridlock or that the trains don't run. There is only so much strain this growth can put on that new district before the arteries get blocked up. The BCEC expansion shouldn't happen in a vacuum. If it does, it will be disastrous.
Click to expand...

That's only true to the degree that conventioneers are trying to get out past the Seaport. I think the BCEC's neighborhood - particularly the D Street Corridor - is being modeled after places like Rosemont, Crystal City and Century Boulevard, convention districts near airports which are convenient to access and which attendees never need to leave.

Now, Boston's advantage is that a fair amount of Downtown is actually walkable from the BCEC, and the State is aware of the need to provide reliable links to desirable destinations further afield. That's what Track 61 is about, and it's why a Harbor Trolley is a good use of money.

As constructed, though, I can't really ever see the BCEC placing a lot of people in the T. If we were doing it over, it might be worth spending the money from hospitality taxes on connecting the Green Line to the SLW Tunnel - giving true transit access to the convention traffic before growing it. That's simply not in the cards anymore. Connecting the BCEC and Hynes with DMUs is the best you can do, and that might not even be worth it.

Frankly, the Del Frisco's guys are taking taxis everywhere, anyway. For the rest, I could see three links that are important to make: Logan-SBW, SBW-Back Bay, and SBW-Kendall. The only T rail line serving any of those with a 1-seat ride is Red from SS, and the T already has $1.5 billion mapped out for making that better.
 
just because you might not agree with something does not make it bogus.
tis a slipperly slope to suggest that someone be banned for such a thing--what about folks that might think your opinions are bogus?
and surely you cannot be serious that ALL of Rifleman's posts are bereft any forum-related content . . .
and now, back to BCEC Expansion.
Click to expand...

My main gripe is that he derails threads with politics. I come here for architecture, urban and transportation planning discussions.

Why can't we just have a politics forum that we can all safely ignore or move posts too that are clearly off-topic?
 
meddlepal said:
My main gripe is that he derails threads with politics. I come here for architecture, urban and transportation planning discussions.
Click to expand...

When we're talking about real life, isn't urban/transportation planning and politics almost inseparable? Even architecture, to a much smaller degree.
 
shmessy said:
I agree with some of your points there, but without real transportation infrastructure upgrades and expansion, this will all be for naught. No one will want to come to Boston if the big conventions send people home moaning about how they were stuck in hours of gridlock or that the trains don't run. There is only so much strain this growth can put on that new district before the arteries get blocked up. The BCEC expansion shouldn't happen in a vacuum. If it does, it will be disastrous.
Click to expand...

A lot of the people will be flying in to Boston to go to the conventions held here. This means they will be taking a taxi to the airport, staying at one of the many hotels that are/will be here in the near future. The other people will be able to take the silver line from the airport to the seaport (yes the silver line needs to be upgraded to rail). Finally Boston is purchasing DMU's that will be riding on the rail from directly in front of the BCEC to the back bay. This means the people will also be able to stay in back bay hotels, more access to shopping/getting around the city in general, and also will be able to get to the commuter rail. The transportation is a problem but once the DMU's come it wont be as bad as people think and I strongly believe one day the silver line will be converted to rail.
 
stick n move said:
A lot of the people will be flying in to Boston to go to the conventions held here. This means they will be taking a taxi to the airport, staying at one of the many hotels that are/will be here in the near future. The other people will be able to take the silver line from the airport to the seaport (yes the silver line needs to be upgraded to rail). Finally Boston is purchasing DMU's that will be riding on the rail from directly in front of the BCEC to the back bay. This means the people will also be able to stay in back bay hotels, more access to shopping/getting around the city in general, and also will be able to get to the commuter rail. The transportation is a problem but once the DMU's come it wont be as bad as people think and I strongly believe one day the silver line will be converted to rail.
Click to expand...

I'm fascinated with the potential of Track 61 and am particularly interested in this additional nugget from Shirley Leung's piece last September:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...nd-back-bay/oHUinYj30lzOV6KNCQUMEJ/story.html "Eventually, the state can also run a separate route from Track 61 into South Station."

I'd be interested if there have been any discussion on integrating that BCEC-Back Bay line with the Silver Line upgrade to rail possibility to the airport. A rail line from the airport to Back Bay, with the BCEC as a stop would be a great enhancement.

Also, not insignificantly, this Track 61 seems to traverse the Ink Block area. Wouldn't it be a huge benefit to put a stop along the way there also?

The Blue Line "airport station" is a bad joke. Having to take a bus from outside a terminal to get to the "airport station" is not acceptable for a city that wants to be world class and competitive.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Very valid point. I feel the Commonwealth and city should first target rapid transit infrastructure. To me, THAT is fundamental to building a world class metropolis. The buildings will flow from that.
Click to expand...

Finally something worth reading. Is this what I've been preaching for the last 5 years.

Transit Infrastructure? This is my point about the Casino being a no win situation for both Revere and Everett. The infrastructure is just outdated and overbuilt.

The plan for Seaport was flawed right from the begin. Very sad that people have not recoginized this yet.
Boston & the surrounding areas are more and more becoming bottleneck in traffic congestion. But they still want to build, build, build.

Are we not all in this together as a community? Why not build and plan logically for Long-term wealth.
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
Finally something worth reading. Is this what I've been preaching for the last 5 years.

Transit Infrastructure? This is my point about the Casino being a no win situation for both Revere and Everett. The infrastructure is just outdated and overbuilt.

The plan for Seaport was flawed right from the begin. Very sad that people have not recoginized this yet.

Boston & the surrounding areas are more and more becoming bottleneck in traffic congestion. But they still want to build, build, build.
Click to expand...

Good. At least it got you off your Tourettes Syndrome fantasy yelping about Massachusetts taxpayers having to fund the BCEC expansion.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
I agree with some of your points there, but without real transportation infrastructure upgrades and expansion, this will all be for naught. No one will want to come to Boston if the big conventions send people home moaning about how they were stuck in hours of gridlock or that the trains don't run. There is only so much strain this growth can put on that new district before the arteries get blocked up. The BCEC expansion shouldn't happen in a vacuum. If it does, it will be disastrous.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that transportation upgrades and better infrastructure in general is needed for the Seaport to support a larger BCEC.

However, I have to point out that many successful convention cities manage large conventions with horrible infrastructure, and huge traffic delays between the hotels and the convention site. McCormack Place in Chicago is a hugely successful convention venue, but the transportation system is horrible. It is normal to spend an hour on a bus from your hotel going to or from the center. Yet large conventions go back year after year after year.
 
Casino/hotel should have been built near BCEC without subsidies...move post office from SS to Everett and put up huge middle/working class residential community at Suffolk downs...boom done
 
$1 billion buys about 0.5 miles of the Second Ave subway now being constructed in NYC.
 
shmessy said:
......and, in the long run, it's worth every penny.
Click to expand...

That's the attitude that encourages and brings about massive cost overruns.

Case in point: Moscow's subway system, which is undergoing MASSIVE expansion (and I am seeing it with my own eyes, in a shocked state). Every month multiple lines seem to be extended, multiple stations built. All in all the city plans to open 70 stations and increase by 90 miles by 2020. The cost? $30 billion, or $0.3 billion per mile. One-SEVENTH what NYC pays.

The first phase, from 2012 to 2016: 50 miles and 33 stations for $16 billion ... that's in 4 years from start to finish. And the lines / stations are higher quality than most of the existing NY/Boston systems.

From time to time I think, "If a city like Moscow, which is much poorer than NY, can expand its network so ambitiously, why not NY?" Then I look at the relative costs.

Sadly, there's no pushback on these costs in the US. Many people are skeptical of transit expansion, in large part because it's always so expensive. In the other camp are those who push for transit expansion. They often take on near ideological/fanatical overtones, e.g., "We can and should spend $200 billion to expand this subway line 2 miles out. Public transit is worth any amount it takes." So when they get their way, that's what we get: relatively little at a massive cost. Get a bit more skeptical, push to bring costs down (and they can come way, way, way down), and you'll see a lot more expansion is possible for the same money.

http://www.russia-now.info/russia/r...etro-circle_line_cost_22_billion_euro_96.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20009eda-2cfa-11e3-8281-00144feab7de.html#axzz33OtmZk69
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20120514/173453514.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/moscow-metro-expansion-races-ahead/493824.html
 
itchy said:
That's the attitude that encourages and brings about massive cost overruns.

Case in point: Moscow's subway system, which is undergoing MASSIVE expansion (and I am seeing it with my own eyes, in a shocked state). Every month multiple lines seem to be extended, multiple stations built. All in all the city plans to open 70 stations and increase by 90 miles by 2020. The cost? $30 billion, or $0.3 billion per mile. One-SEVENTH what NYC pays.

The first phase, from 2012 to 2016: 50 miles and 33 stations for $16 billion ... that's in 4 years from start to finish. And the lines / stations are higher quality than most of the existing NY/Boston systems.

From time to time I think, "If a city like Moscow, which is much poorer than NY, can expand its network so ambitiously, why not NY?" Then I look at the relative costs.

Sadly, there's no pushback on these costs in the US. Many people are skeptical of transit expansion, in large part because it's always so expensive. In the other camp are those who push for transit expansion. They often take on near ideological/fanatical overtones, e.g., "We can and should spend $200 billion to expand this subway line 2 miles out. Public transit is worth any amount it takes." So when they get their way, that's what we get: relatively little at a massive cost. Get a bit more skeptical, push to bring costs down (and they can come way, way, way down), and you'll see a lot more expansion is possible for the same money.

http://www.russia-now.info/russia/r...etro-circle_line_cost_22_billion_euro_96.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20009eda-2cfa-11e3-8281-00144feab7de.html#axzz33OtmZk69
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20120514/173453514.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/moscow-metro-expansion-races-ahead/493824.html
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things you can do more cheaply in an autocratic state than you can do in a democracy. You don't have to worry about niceties like negotiating for land, you just take it. Pesky costs like OSHA and EPA are not an issue. Being able to do what you want on a construction site really speeds up the work.

Also, about half of the cost differential between Moscow and NYC is the labor cost difference. But a construction worker could not live in NYC on Moscow wages!

And of course, if you happen to suggest that you will be late, or that there will be a cost overrun, the gulags are waiting.
 
JeffDowntown said:
There are a lot of things you can do more cheaply in an autocratic state than you can do in a democracy. You don't have to worry about niceties like negotiating for land, you just take it. Pesky costs like OSHA and EPA are not an issue. Being able to do what you want on a construction site really speeds up the work.

Also, about half of the cost differential between Moscow and NYC is the labor cost difference. But a construction worker could not live in NYC on Moscow wages!

And of course, if you happen to suggest that you will be late, or that there will be a cost overrun, the gulags are waiting.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

One might as well compare the cost of opening up a textile factory in Cambridge versus opening up same factory in Mississippi or Bangladesh. Advantage Mississippi or Bangladesh? No, thank you.

Meanwhile, say what you want about the US economy - - there's no way I'd trade it for Russia's which is crapping the bed even with its oil/petroleum and existing pipelines (which is all it really has - - the future there is very dark).

A billion per half mile of 2nd Ave NYC subway will produce FAR more return than .3 billion per mile in Moscow.
 
itchy said:
Sadly, there's no pushback on these costs in the US. Many people are skeptical of transit expansion, in large part because it's always so expensive. In the other camp are those who push for transit expansion. They often take on near ideological/fanatical overtones, e.g., "We can and should spend $200 billion to expand this subway line 2 miles out. Public transit is worth any amount it takes." So when they get their way, that's what we get: relatively little at a massive cost. Get a bit more skeptical, push to bring costs down (and they can come way, way, way down), and you'll see a lot more expansion is possible for the same money.

[/url]
Click to expand...

Really? $200 billion for 2 miles of a subway line???? Who has EVER said anything like that? You claim it is said "often".

Hell, that's crazy talk - - ironically, like $51 billion for your man Putin's Winter Olympics. Sorry, Itchy, you're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top