Boston 2024

[tangent]

The main/original point wasn't that we don't need transit for getting around or to make people's lives better, the point was we didn't need a four week surge in demand by athletes, press and visitors to and from temporary venues to create a justification to create permanent infrastructure... we should build what we need to support the kind of long term development we want. Or not.

Boston 2024 should have been treated like planning logistics for an event, because that is what it is.

 

[bigpicture7]

The main/original point wasn't that we don't need transit for getting around or to make people's lives better, the point was we didn't need a four week surge in demand by athletes, press and visitors to and from temporary venues to create a justification to create permanent infrastructure... we should build what we need to support the kind of long term development we want. Or not.

Boston 2024 should have been treated like planning logistics for an event, because that is what it is.

I don't disagree, but just to clarify, I took the liberty of assuming that this thread was a bit less constrained now that the olympics are dead...

And so I took the opportunity to point out that we have no other funding vehicle remotely visible on the horizon for any of the things I listed. And that that's sad.

(if there are such potential funds and I'm just not aware, feel free to brighten my day)

 

[odurandina]

It would seem the projects now proposed + permitted will have us reaching a place where our transit will need to be running with extreme reliability, and several of the most intelligent add-ons contained in your future T maps moving forward.

 

[DominusNovus]

The main/original point wasn't that we don't need transit for getting around or to make people's lives better, the point was we didn't need a four week surge in demand by athletes, press and visitors to and from temporary venues to create a justification to create permanent infrastructure... we should build what we need to support the kind of long term development we want. Or not.

Boston 2024 should have been treated like planning logistics for an event, because that is what it is.

Given how long its taken us to build anything transit related, I can't help but think that a kick in the pants to build out our infrastructure would be useful.

 

[JohnAKeith]

At the risk of ending up slicing my wrists, I'll bite: What "funding vehicle" was available to pay for transit upgrades / improvements / additions due to the Olympics (tm) coming to Boston?

... I took the opportunity to point out that we have no other funding vehicle remotely visible on the horizon for any of the things I listed. And that that's sad.

(if there are such potential funds and I'm just not aware, feel free to brighten my day)

 

[bigpicture7]

At the risk of ending up slicing my wrists, I'll bite: What "funding vehicle" was available to pay for transit upgrades / improvements / additions due to the Olympics (tm) coming to Boston?

No viable one, John.

There wasn't a viable one before Boston2024, there wasn't a viable one via Boston2024, and there isn't a viable one now.

 

[tangent]

I don't disagree, but just to clarify, I took the liberty of assuming that this thread was a bit less constrained now that the olympics are dead...

And so I took the opportunity to point out that we have no other funding vehicle remotely visible on the horizon for any of the things I listed. And that that's sad.

(if there are such potential funds and I'm just not aware, feel free to brighten my day)

The "funding vehicle" is what I take issue with. You need funding yes... you need to justify funding yes... you need project XYZ for the Olympics... No.

Basing your public policy on misleading the public will undermine public trust and diminishes the amount of money people are willing to trust with the government.

If these projects are actually worth it, then we should be able to pull together the numbers to prove it.

 

[jklo]

Not sure if you meant we are pretty much @ sweatshops, or pretty much at instantly portable jobs and families.

Basically for what good jobs are left, companies are consolidating to small areas in the US because they can get away with it and things like Cost of Living, etc, don't matter anymore. Why go to Middle America when you can be in Downtown Boston and pay some millennial the same salary or less?

Boston's big advantage is the colleges (cheap educated labor!) and the MBTA which has better coverage than most of other US cities. Even if it sucks/is slow. So it's sort of like it would make people's lives easier if they did make some infrastructure improvements but at the same time it's not like people will leave if it doesn't happen. Because where else are they going to go?

 

[bigpicture7]

Basically for what good jobs are left, companies are consolidating to small areas in the US because they can get away with it and things like Cost of Living, etc, don't matter anymore. Why go to Middle America when you can be in Downtown Boston and pay some millennial the same salary or less?

Boston's big advantage is the colleges (cheap educated labor!) and the MBTA which has better coverage than most of other US cities. Even if it sucks/is slow. So it's sort of like it would make people's lives easier if they did make some infrastructure improvements but at the same time it's not like people will leave if it doesn't happen. Because where else are they going to go?

Yes, yes, yes. That is precisely what I meant. Asymmetric bargaining in labor markets means exactly what you just described above, and it is strategic and intentional on behalf of employers. I am not "complaining" so much as just pointing out that it is natural - and it is why the majority of people can stare at a problem like transit and all feel it ought to be different, and yet we still don't have the voting-with-our-feet leverage to instill change (the way we do in consumer markets by boycotting products / selecting alternatives).


(Thank you)